SSOAR Logo
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • English 
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • Login
SSOAR ▼
  • Home
  • About SSOAR
  • Guidelines
  • Publishing in SSOAR
  • Cooperating with SSOAR
    • Cooperation models
    • Delivery routes and formats
    • Projects
  • Cooperation partners
    • Information about cooperation partners
  • Information
    • Possibilities of taking the Green Road
    • Grant of Licences
    • Download additional information
  • Operational concept
Browse and search Add new document OAI-PMH interface
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Download PDF
Download full text

(3.474Mb)

Citation Suggestion

Please use the following Persistent Identifier (PID) to cite this document:
https://doi.org/10.12759/hsr.45.2020.4.309-346

Exports for your reference manager

Bibtex export
Endnote export

Display Statistics
Share
  • Share via E-Mail E-Mail
  • Share via Facebook Facebook
  • Share via Bluesky Bluesky
  • Share via Reddit reddit
  • Share via Linkedin LinkedIn
  • Share via XING XING

"Kärnten" = Austria, "Koroška" = Yugoslavia? A Novel Perspective on the 1920 Carinthian Plebiscite

"Kärnten" = Österreich, "Koroška" = Jugoslawien? Eine neue Perspektive auf die Kärntner Volksabstimmung von 1920
[journal article]

Tiemann, Guido

Abstract

In 1920, the Carinthian plebiscite was organized to decide whether an ethnically and/or linguistically heterogeneous part of South-East Carinthia was to be part of the newly established German-Austrian rump state or of the newly established Kingdom of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs (SHS). Although ethn... view more

In 1920, the Carinthian plebiscite was organized to decide whether an ethnically and/or linguistically heterogeneous part of South-East Carinthia was to be part of the newly established German-Austrian rump state or of the newly established Kingdom of Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs (SHS). Although ethnic or linguistic "Slovenes" constituted a majority of almost 70 percent within the referendum zone, more than 59 percent of the voters opted to integrate into Austria. The allegedly victorious German side quickly turned the choice for Austria into a nationalist narrative fueled by claims of cultural superiority, fostered by the invention of an integrated, publicly funded memorial culture, and vigorously defended against any objections or revisionism from "the outside." In this paper, however, we utilize an ecological inference model to show that nationalist authors on both sides severely overrated the causal impact and empirical significance of the alleged ethnic cleavage, underestimated the share of "Slovenian" voters, and overestimated the share of "German" voters that selected to join the Austrian state. Instead of the reported 10,000, more than 13,000 Slovenes, roughly 60 percent, had voted for Austria, while only 9,000 German-speaking voters, roughly 75 percent, supported Austria.... view less

Keywords
Carinthia; Austria; Yugoslavia; plebiscite; ethnic group

Classification
General History

Free Keywords
electoral research; referendum; ecological inference; Carinthian plebiscite

Document language
English

Publication Year
2020

Page/Pages
p. 309-346

Journal
Historical Social Research, 45 (2020) 4

ISSN
0172-6404

Status
Published Version; peer reviewed

Licence
Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0


GESIS LogoDFG LogoOpen Access Logo
Home  |  Legal notices  |  Operational concept  |  Privacy policy
© 2007 - 2025 Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR).
Based on DSpace, Copyright (c) 2002-2022, DuraSpace. All rights reserved.
 

 


GESIS LogoDFG LogoOpen Access Logo
Home  |  Legal notices  |  Operational concept  |  Privacy policy
© 2007 - 2025 Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR).
Based on DSpace, Copyright (c) 2002-2022, DuraSpace. All rights reserved.