Archduke Otto: Responding to Dr. Trifkovic
I read Dr. Srdja Trifkovic’s highly coloured article on ChroniclesMagazine.org about the recently deceased Archduke Otto of Austria with a mixture of surprise and concern. Not a single one of his sources supported the entirely negative picture that he drew.
Let's see why.
“Habsburg was an enthusiastic supporter of the Jihadist side in the Bosnian civil war, visited Sarajevo repeatedly during that war, and had several meetings with Alija Izetbegovic.”
The “source”? Apparently it is this, on the Otto von Habsburg condolence website, which states:
Otto von Habsburg meets Bosnian president Alija Izetbegovic in April 1997.
Eh? How does this “prove” that he was “an enthusiastic supporter of the Jihadist side”? It is ludicrous.
“No Orthodox Christians were invited” [to the funeral of Archduke Otto.]
Wrong! Not only were they invited, but they attended. I saw them myself.
Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Staikos of Vienna himself was invited and, indeed, attended, and he was by no means the only Eastern Orthodox cleric to attend.
“At his funeral, on Habsburg’s specific instructions, the religious leader of Bosnia’s Muslims, reis-ul-ulema Mustafa effendi Ceric, joined Roman Catholic and Jewish clerics in prayer... It should be noted that in a 2005 interview Ceric called Britain one of the early ‘trophies’ of Islam in Europe.”
“Source”? It's a highly tendentious piece in Militant Islam Monitor. The Monitor begins by commenting “he sees the UK as one of the first ‘trophies’ in the islamisation of Europe” but, in fact—despite the quotation marks—Dr. Ceric never uses the word.
He is quoted in the Monitor thus:
This future Western Muslim identity will represent neither assimilation nor isolation, but co-operation.
He likens the process to that experienced by British Jews: at first outsiders, they later became part of the fabric of society but have defended their identity and world view. In turn, that world view influences decisions of the state and international relations.
Note that: co-operation; and that, moreover, like British Jews! No mention of any “trophy.”
Nothing, moreover, about Archduke Otto as a friend and supporter of terrorists.
“He [Habsburg] counts among his international activities participation in radical Islamic groups and events . . . ”
What is the source for this claim? Oops! The “page cannot be found" on the internet. Does it even exist?
“[He counts also] links with Muslim activists banned from the US for terrorist funding and phony Islamic ‘charities’ tainted by terrorist links.”
The “source”? Militant Islam Monitor again. But what does it say about Otto and banned Muslims?
Nothing. Err . . . at all. Yep. Nix. Not one little reference at all!
Hey, but what about his “links” with phony Islamic “charities tainted by terrorist links”?
Oops—sorry! Page not available on the net, again!
Well, well. How unfortunate . . .
“Habsburg was a strong supporter of Bill Clinton’s Kosovo war and repeatedly called for the bombing of Belgrade, starting in 1993, six years before it happened in March 1999.”
“Source”? None given! Yes, folks, none at all.
Well, what else is on the web?
First, there’s a claim by an article called “Yugoslavia and its Enemies: 1903-1998” citing a “Vatican/New World Order” conspiracy which it seems to claim exists. It appears on a site called Open Bible Ministries, a Northern Irish Protestant web site based in Belfast, which claims that:
It is the voice of Israel-Identity believers in Ulster. . . . It also seeks to declare the identity of the Celto-Anglo-Saxon peoples as the Israel of God.
In it, an article, cited also in The Trumpet [here and here], tells us “how Germany and the Vatican use the European Union and NATO to achieve their historical aims in Yugoslavia”
Got that folks? The Vatican has driven its tank divisions onto the Serbian lawns.
The same article also provides a purported timeline. Try this little gem on for size:
1933 The most Catholic of German governments takes power—Hitler, von Papen, Himmler, Goebbels, Goering.
Apparently those hundreds of years of the Catholic Holy Roman Empire were not really Catholic.
No—the real Catholic government was that of the Catholic-hating, National Socialist and racist fanatic, Adolf Hitler, whose hatred of Roman Catholicism is made abundantly clear throughout his book Mein Kampf and who presided over the murder of hundreds of thousands of Catholic bishops, priests and laymen.
Yep—a truly Catholic government, that one, folks!
Oh, and did I mention it? No evidence at all that Archduke Otto called for the bombing of Belgrade. Not a whit! Nix, again!
And yet Serb nationalists keep repeating this canard like a mantra, so that it has gone viral on dozens of Serb nationalist websites and chat rooms, without any authenticating reference whatever.
One site, The Institute for the Study of Globalisation and Covert Politics, repeats the claim in its bio of Archduke Otto but rather spoils its objectivity not only by failing to source the quote but by suggesting that Prince Hans-Adam of Liechtenstein, the Catholic ruling prince of that state, thinks all religions were invented by aliens. Yes, really!
And yet most sites simply quote this very article of Dr. Trifkovic’s as their source for the bombing claim.
The fact is: It’s all poppycock.
Like his father before him, the Blessed Emperor Charles, who forbade the bombing of civilian-inhabited cities in World War I, Archduke Otto was always implacably opposed to bombing civilians.
“His [Habsburg's] support of the KLA terrorists and of Kosovo’s independence was based on a mix of visceral Serbophobia and outright mendacity, earning him a badge of shame in the form of the morbid quasi-state’s ‘golden medal of freedom’.”
Any “source” for this outrageous slur? Here, apparently:
Pristin, 5 October 2006: The representative of the Austrian royal family, Otto von Habsburg, said today in Pristin that Austria will support the goal of the Kosovar people for an independent and integrated Kossovo in the European Union [BBC monitoring reports, reported on Access My Library]
In what way is this “support of KLA terrorists” or, indeed, any terrorism?
Search me—I am as mystified as you!
But what of his “visceral Serbophobia and “outright mendacity” (i.e.,“outright lies”)? The source is said to be from Die Konservative Informationsbasis in Internet with an article by Archduke Otto himself in German. But the article does no more than defend Kosovo’s independence.
Apparently this now amounts to “visceral Serbophobia” and “outright lies.”
Well, folks, it’s a point of view—just not a very rational one!
In the article, Archduke Otto recalls the history of the Kosovo region, half-autonomy under Tito, suppression under Milosevic, and the “worst” that one can find him saying is to compare Rugova to Ghandi and then this:
. . . the suppression [of the Kosovars] was accomplished in a uniquely brutal form, in particular by the Serbian volunteer corps of Arkan. The last remainders of autonomy were extinguished, and, which was still more important, a systematic Serbianisation developed.
[The German reads: “ . . . die Unterdrückung wurde in einer einmalig brutalen Form, insbesondere durch die serbischen Freischaren des Arkan, durchgeführt. Die letzten Reste der Autonomie wurden gestrichen, und was noch wichtiger war, es entstand eine systematische Serbisierungspolitik.”]
How is this “visceral Serbophobia”? How is it an “outright lie”?
Answers on a postcard, please!
As a matter of historical fact, I expect many Serbs would actually agree that it is true.
Moreover, Archduke Otto actually criticises Western leaders for their indecision and ends by saying what few would disagree with:
If one really wants to have peace, the only possibility is for democracy, both internationally and nationally. That means the right of self-determination of peoples. Without such being implemented, this area in Kosovo will not have peace and the region would remain a crisis centre in Europe.
[The German reads: “Will man wirklich Frieden haben, gibt es nur die Möglichkeit der Demokratie im internationalen wie im nationalen Leben. Das bedeutet das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker. Ohne dessen Verwirklichung wird es im Kosovo niemals Frieden geben und dieses Gebiet würde ein Krisenherd Europas bleiben.”]
Dr. Trifkovic’s accusation is simply ridiculous and unworthy of a serious scholar.
But worse is to come.
“He supported the destruction of the Njegos Chapel on Mt Lovćen in Montenegro and Montenegrins’ eventual conversion from Orthodoxy to some form of union with Rome. His attitude to Orthodoxy was in sharp contrast to his conciliatory benevolence to Islam.”
What on earth is this all about?
Well, Dr. T leaves us to guess, but a Montenegrin website, montenet.org, explains:
On April 27, 1970, Metropolitan of Montenegro and the Coast (Crnogorsko-primorski)—a branch of the Serbian Orthodox Church—filed a law-suit against the government of Montenegro and Cetinje municipality for their intention to build a mausoleum on Mount Lovćen. The Metropolitan alleged that the decision of Government of Montenegro and Cetinje municipality (1952) to move Njegos’ chapel on Mount Lovćen, and to build a mausoleum in its place, was unlawful and unconstitutional. The Metropolitan lost the case eventually, and the Njegos’ mausoleum was built by the renowned sculptor Ivan Mestrovic . . .
Petar II Petrović-Njegoš (Петар II Петровић Његош) was a Prince-Bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church of Montenegro and famous as a great poet.
The chapel on Mt. Lovćen, at the summit of Jezerski vrh, was chosen by Njegoš himself as his last wish but the shrine was destroyed during the First World War when Austria defeated Montenegro, and its last defences, on Mt Lovćen, on 11 January 1916. [Njegoš's remains were then transferred to a chapel rebuilt by King Alexander in the 1920s at Cetinje Monastery.]
I have been able to find no evidence whatsoever of any kind that Archduke Otto “supported the destruction of the Njegos Chapel,” as Dr Trifkovic alleges.
This is perhaps not entirely surprising since, in January 1916, when Mt. Lovćen fell, Archduke Otto’s father was not yet emperor (he did not succeed until November 1916) and Archduke Otto was, himself, only three years old!
Apparently a three-year old boy is to be held responsible for supporting the destruction of the Njegos Chapel on Mt Lovćen!
This really is perfectly ridiculous.
OK, what next?
“On April 9, 2002, he [Archduke Otto] told the Christian Science Monitor (‘Europe, Prepare to Greet Islam’) that ‘all nations bordering the Mediterranean Sea—including those in North Africa and the Middle East—have a place in his broad vision for tomorrow’s Europe’. He had never made a similar declaration about any such place for Russia, let alone Serbia. His flawed concept has come to be known as Eurabia, and represents the greatest threat to Europe’s demographic, cultural and spiritual survival in the decades ahead.”
As I know from personal talks with him, Archduke Otto’s vision was to try to bring all the peoples of Europe into peaceful co-existence—including both Serbs and Muslims, if possible. But Dr. Trifkovic does not like this. He seeks, instead, to plunge headlong into the old disinformation game.
Let’s see how.
First, the Christian Science Monitor headline—“Europe, Prepare to Greet Islam”—is entirely its own. It is certainly not that of Archduke Otto.
Here is what the Monitor actually says:
For centuries, the ruling Habsburgs defended the Continent against the expansion of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Now Mr von Habsburg makes it clear that all nations bordering the Mediterranean Sea, including those in North Africa and the Middle East, have a place in his broad vision for tomorrow's Europe. Malta and Cyprus are already knocking at Brussels' doors.
Some may label von Habsburg as a nostalgic dreamer trying to resuscitate the spirit of the Holy Roman Empire, the Habsburg hereditary title. But those who understand the Mediterranean phenomenon know how closely linked are the populations of its coasts, dating back to the ancient Greeks and Phoenicians.
The article nowhere quotes Archduke Otto as saying what Dr. Trifkovic attributes to him, nor defending “Eurabia,” still less any policy that could even remotely be said to be “the greatest threat to Europe’s demographic, cultural and spiritual survival in the decades ahead.” In fact, it does not quote him directly at all!
Dr. Trifkovic further tries to lampoon Archduke Otto for simply recognising what all Americans recognise, i.e., that ethnic Hispanics are increasing in numbers in the USA. Hispanics are, moreover, not usually Muslim; they tend to be Christian, if anything, which ought to assuage Dr. T, unless, of course, he is saying that only an increase in the Serb population of America would be desirable.
Dr. Trifkovic then goes on to state, immodestly and, in fact, wrongly, that his facts are “well-documented.”
They simply are not. They are exceedingly poorly marshalled and ill-documented.
He states that they are presented “without malice and without rancour.” I hope he means it, but it is very difficult to believe that when we see, in his later response to comments, the following sort of further caricature:
18 July 2011—Lest I forget, and should have mentioned in the article: in the summer of 2001 Otto von Habsburg signed an ‘international appeal’ on behalf of Chechen Jihadists and their leader Aslan Mashkadov—there’s hardly a nastier piece of work in the Muslim universe—which was initiated by a bunch of West European Russophobe far-leftists . . . Mashkadov was killed by the Russians in 2005, thank God. Otto von Habsburg is now keeping him company.
That last clear—and disgraceful—implication is that Mashkadov and Archduke Otto are both in a well-deserved Hell.
What Dr. Trifkovic does not tell us is that the “international appeal,” far from being in support of Jihadists, was a call for peace!
Moreover, it was also co-signed by heroes of Russia, that country dear to Serbia, like Yelena Bonner-Sakharov, widow of the Russian dissident, Andrei Sakharov, and Vladimir Bukovsky, another famous Russian dissident.
But there is more.
As was reported by Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, Maskhadov offered his readiness for unconditional peace talks with Moscow several times in 2000 alone, and continuing in the following years, but his appeals were always ignored by the Russian side.
Mashkadov sought to negotiate by appealing to the CSCE, the UN and the West. He also sought to contain the Chechen war-lords, the Wahabists and other extremists in the war.
One cannot help wondering if Dr. Trifkovic objects to him chiefly because he would not lie down and be destroyed by the Russians—the Russian nation whose destiny he sees as so intimately intertwined with that of Serbia.
But worse still was the piece of hate-filled vitriol that followed. This was a real peach:
18 July 2011—His [Archduke Otto’s] was the bigoted, schwarzgelb pseudo-Christianity that cost real Europe dearly in 1914. Like a Spanish Bourbon that he wasn’t, he had learned nothing and forgotten nothing. No wonder he was such an Euro-integrationist as well as an Eurabian dhimmi to boot—the two go well together.
How’s that? What can he be speaking of? Why Roman Catholicism, of course, and in that thoroughly prejudicial, anti-Catholic way that has, for so many centuries, led to so much hatred and bloodshed in so many countries of Europe.
This is unworthy of any Christian—Catholic, Orthodox or, for that matter, Protestant.
Let us not forget how the war in 1914 really started, shall we?
Serb nationalist terrorists assassinated the Archduke Franz-Ferdinand, the heir to the imperial throne, and did so in cold blood for the sake of the same spurious ultra-nationalism that has led, time and again, directly to bloody war in Europe.
Dr. Trifkovic—sadly—descends into yet further unworthy abuse, piling error upon error:
20 July 2011— . . . far from being ‘hostile’ the implied criticism has been entirely empirical. The facts of Otto’s folly, on Izetbegovic, Ceric, Kosova, Spanish-speaking American states, etc, speak for themselves. Far from not being pro-Serb or pro-Orthodox, which is unobjectionable, he was murderously anti-Serb and viscerally anti-Orthodox, which is evil. His vision of a united Europe was not ‘naive’ but Illuminated to the 32nd degree. His pandering to Euro-Islam was unforgivable. A bad man.
The spurious “facts” do not speak for themselves, at all. Indeed, these “facts” are no such thing. They are simply wrong—as we have seen.
The criticism has been neither “empirical” nor “implied.” The criticism is either wholly false or gross exaggeration and made more positively wrong still by ignorant and inexcusable false accusations like “murderous,” “illuminated to the 32nd degree” (implying that Archduke Otto was a high-ranking Freemason, in flat defiance of his own Church’s law), and other manifest falsehoods.
Dr. Trifkovic does neither himself nor his cause any good by this sort of false and scandalous, defamatory muck-raking. Indeed, he damages his own cause and that of his own country and people by such gross exaggeration and misleading misrepresentation. Worse—he does the very thing that he expends so much time in protesting that others do to him and his fellow Serbs.
Using these same tactics would have been far easier against Dr. Trifkovic than against Archduke Otto. Dr. Trifkovic has been an ally and defender of numerous Serb leaders, some of whom, like Biljana Plavsic and Milomir Stakic, have since been convicted of war crimes at the Hague tribunal, and for these and other reasons Dr. Trifkovic was refused entry into Canada in February 2011.
Guilty by association?
It therefore behoves someone in his position to take care that he does not misrepresent others, especially someone as pre-eminent as Archduke Otto.
Nationhood, love of country and patriotism are important but they are not so important that they take precedence over justice, peace, and mercy—or, indeed, truth.
I count myself among those who are disturbed at the way in which the West conducted the wars in the Balkans and am concerned that accusations of huge massacres said to have been carried out by Serbian forces are now beginning to appear exaggerated, as the evidence comes out in the war crimes trials and elsewhere.
I, too, insist that Serbs receive justice and fair play, as much as any other people.
That honourable goal, however, is not going to be served by dishing up half-baked exaggerations, misrepresentations, and inaccurate misreporting.
Indeed, stooping to such methods may even damage the Serb cause since the enemies of Serbia will simply use it against them.
I therefore urge Dr. Trifkovic to take especial care to maintain a right and proper academic balance and objectivity.
Entries(RSS)
This article is beneath the standards I expect from Chronicles - scare quotes, "err.." used in sentences, red herrings galore. It's one thing to think Trifkovic may have gone overboard with von Hapsburg (which I would agree with), but this is more like something I'd expect from a neo-con Catholic website where nothing but hero-worship of Otto von Hapsburg will be accepted. Like typical neo-con Catholics, the author manages to get a dig in that the hispanic boom in America will be no big deal because they are 'Christian'. But, the author fails to answer the central charge against von Hapsburg that should tarnish his reputation even with Cathlics - namely, that he was a fanatical supporter of the openly anti-Christian EU.
Mr Maxwell is entitled to his own view but not to his blunders.
Far from being red herrings, all my quotes come directly from the supposed "evidence" of Dr Trifkovic against Archduke Otto.
Dr Trifkovic has gone far more than simply "overboard". He just does not prove his case. On the contrary, it is a tissue of misrepresentation.
His article is a wholly unjustified smear of a man who has been dead only a very short time and cannot now defend himself.
Mr Maxwell is also too quick to judge and makes an elementary blunder thereby.
Far from being a "Neo-con Catholic", I am a traditional Catholic as most people who know me can testify.
The difference is simply that I knew Archduke Otto and I know that he has been seriously traduced by Dr Trifkovic's article.
Mr Maxwell needs to go back and read the sources before he rushes to judgement. He clearly has not done so.
The "central charge" against Archduke Otto in Dr Trifkovic's article is not chiefly that he was a "fanatical supporter" of the EU but rather that he was viscerally anti-Serb, pro-Muslim and a supporter of terrorists. These charges are simply false.
Once again, Mr Maxwell needs to read the articles more carefully.
Archduke Otto was - and always remained - a supporter of a Europe based upon the ideal of De Gasperi, Adenauer and De Gaulle, all men he knew personally, and all devout and traditional Catholics. But their vision has been eclipsed by a new generation of secularist politicians and officials.
Archduke Otto's vision for Europe was not the anti-Christian vision that has since come to the fore.
If Mr Maxwell cannot see the difference that is his mistake, not Archduke Otto's.
Archduke Otto had the humility to recognise his own limits and limitations. He was well aware that the name of Habsburg disqualified him in modern Europe from undertaking many things and expressing many views that he might otherwise have wished to do.
He contented himself - wisely - with achieving what he could under the circumstances.
As an MEP, he challenged any development which was anti-Christian, so far as it lay in his power. The fact that he had only a very limited power so to challenge is not a fault to lay at his door. He was constantly excluded by the secularists. Nevertheless, he was often able to side-step them, albeit in ways limited by the fact of his often being marginalised by them.
Mr Maxwell needs to re-learn that politics is the art of the possible - not the impossible. Neither is politics the art of pointless and irresponsible gesturing.
But to accuse Archduke Otto of siding with terrorists is a disgracefully false charge.
And it lies ill in the mouth of Dr Trifkovic who has, in the past, defended those who have but recently been convicted of war crimes.
I entirely sympathise with those Serbs who have been unjustly accused but their cause is not going to be served by falsely accusing and defaming Archduke Otto.
Let's try it this way: Had the deceased ever spoken IN FAVOR of the rights of the Serbs, to the detriment of their agressors? It appears that he had not. The fact that the deceased was for the world peace, love among all the diverse nations, ecumenical brotherhood and all the other politically correct platitudes does not distingush him from any other tormentors of the Serbs, be it Mrs. albright, Doug Feith, Cristopher Hitchens, Soros, Lantos etc.
I could go down the laundry list line by line and show how completely outrageous this rebuttal is, but let's just stop at Mustafa Ceric. Apparently one quote from some obscure magazine is not sufficient to establish him as a Serb hater. Perhaps Mr. Ceric, like the deceased is also a fighter for world peace and an old around good guy! There must be some source on the internet where he speaks of the evil that is being done to the Serbs, since he is a roghteous man. Ooops, looks like the web page cannot be found! I suggest to Mr. Jacobite to do his homework better.
"But, the author fails to answer the central charge against von Hapsburg that should tarnish his reputation even with Cathlics – namely, that he was a fanatical supporter of the openly anti-Christian EU."
Many Catholics supported European unification. That was not a particular fault of Otto von Habsburg; it was a post-war conciliatory mentality that unfortunately ignored the dangers of seeking conciliation with mortal enemies when these latter have not given up their creed of our destruction. Habsburg was simply a Christian Democrat imbibed on the ralliement. Those who read French should read "L'église et le ralliement : anatomie d'une crise" by Philippe Prévost. It is not a perfect book but I should really ask the author if I might translate it into English; it is a very important work.
NGPM- "normalcy" re-asserted. thank you.
Yes, but unlike many of the early architects of European unification, Otto von Hapsburg had the benefit of actually seeing what the EU has become and continued to support it anyway. I understand that the Hapsburg family has a sentimental view of unification, but their support of it without Christianity which tells me where their priorities lie.
Chronicles: What happened to the original info (displayed with this article) that outlined this individual's foundation of authority on this issue? I could have sworn it was originally displayed (or perhaps I'm hallucinating).
I found the author of the article to be rather petty and snooty in his style and presentation, which made it difficult for me to read him with any sympathy. His entire thesis seemed to be "Trifkovic is being a meanie". I do not know enough about the archduke to speak with any authority, but Dr. Trifkovic did make a strong case for him being a strong advocate of the open borders madness and a champion of the wicked EU. This response did little to clear up those charges. Clearly the archduke, as good as his intentions may have been, did not understand at all the politics of Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, and other such hot spots that he saw fit to comment on.
James Bogle is a distinguished barrister and author, whose participation on this website is welcomed. We published his response as we received it. Dr. Trifkovic is a big boy and can respond as he likes. As someone without a dog in this fight--indeed, I have no opinion whatsoever--I will repeat what I said before, that it is not a good idea to criticize a man, beloved and respected by so many of our friends, before a decent interval of mourning is allowed, perhaps a year. To compare Otto von Hapsburg with, for example, Richard Holbrooke, is absurd. If I insult a man's dead mother or grandfather or hero, I must expect to be attacked.
Opposition to the EU is not a litmus test for moral sanity. There are many reasons why anti-Soviet/anti-American rightists preferred to take their chances with a European Union. The 20th century did not offer many options. It is all very sweet to want to restore the Bourbons or the Palaeologoi, but such sentiments should be confined to fiction. In the real world, the choice is more often Hitler or Stalin or FDR. A wise man might well choose not to choose, but he may not be justified in condemning those who feel compelled to take sides.
I do not think Otto von Habsburg was a major historical figure, but I do remember him with some fondness. He did, after all, help to physically remove Ian Paisley from the European Parliament after Paisely began denouncing John Paul II as "the Antichrist." Those who are interested may see a news report of that incident here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fm0QOIw8nQ
More broadly speaking, I acknowledge a debt to the Habsburgs for their role in defending the Catholic Church in the part of the world from which the Piataks came, and for that reason I was glad to see that the Archbishop of Trnava was one of the concelebrants of Otto von Habsburg's funeral Mass at St. Stephen's in Vienna.
I realize that it was not good to be a Slav in the 19th century Kingdom of Hungary, but the Habsburgs were not responsible for the excesses of Magyar nationalism. Indeed, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, murdered in cold blood (along with his wife) was a champion of federalism within the Empire and a foe of Magyar chauvinism.
As one who normally appreciates Dr. Trikovic's postings, I thought from the outset his piece on Otto von Hapsburg was mean-spirited and, as Dr. Fleming indicates, premature at the least.
I found Mr. Bogle's response to be quite persuasive and not the least petty or inappropriate. Certainly, his rebuttal to Dr. Trifkovic was robust; I salute his coming to the defense of someone no longer able to defend himself in such a stout and vigorous manner.
I share with Mr. Piatak, as someone with Croatian heritage, the respect due the Hapsburgs for their defense of the faith in the Balkans and Eastern Europe generally. The Hapsburg Monarchy was not without its faults but can anyone claim that life in the region was better in the almost 100 years since they were in power?
Perhaps reasonable people can disagree about the impact of Otto von Hapsburg and his views vis-a-vis the EU and the future of the West, but if we're not able to grant him a separate space without lumping him with the likes of Albright, Hitchens, Soros and assorted neo-cons then I believe our fate is already sealed -we're beyond hope.
A significant branch of my family is of Austrian extraction and I've always held a bit of a soft spot for the Habsburgs, although I do not know enough to talk intelligently about them. I do know that I like the French Bourbons very thoroughly, although Dr. Fleming is correct that they do not play a significant role on the European political scene and are not likely to do so in the coming decades. (I'm referring here to the senior branch, by the way, not to the Orléanist "Kings of the French.")
Could Otto von Habsburg and Baudouin I de Belgique have been more outspokenly resistant to the changes sweeping their respective countries? Yes. Would it have done any good? I don't know. What I do know is that Baudouin at least was certainly more outspoken regarding the moral collapse in Western Europe than many Catholic bishops in France and in Germany have been these past 60 years. Without even the support of traditional cadres, the potential for action on the part of either of these figures was extremely limited.
At any rate, both Otto and Baudouin were certainly more benign influences than either Juan Carlos of Spain or Baudouin's infamous son. For a Catholic to pay tribute to Otto is certainly nothing on the order of the invocations given at Ted Kennedy's funeral Mass (of the "ordinary form") by relations of various religious confessions:
MAX ALLEN, SEN. KENNEDY'S GRANDSON: For what my grandpa calls the cause of his life, as he said so often, in every part of this land, that every American will have decent quality health care, as a fundamental right, and not a privilege. We pray to the Lord.
CONGREGATION: Lord, hear our prayer.
JACK SCHLOSSBERG, SEN. KENNEDY'S GREAT-NEPHEW: For a new season of hope that my uncle Teddy envisioned, where we rise to our best ideals, close the book on the old politics of race and gender, group against group and straight against gay. We pray to the Lord.
CONGREGATION: Lord, hear our prayer.
That was straying a little off-topic, I know, but I can't resist the opportunity to say on this web site, where I think everyone--Northerner, Southerner, Midwesterner, Mountaineer, Unionist, Separatist, Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant--will agree wholeheartedly with the commentary I made to one of my best college friends right after the aforementioned incident:
WE NEED AN INQUISITION IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON.
"..the respect due the Hapsburgs for their defense of the faith in the Balkans and Eastern Europe generally."
Unfortunatly the "defence of faith" at some point had meant the ethnic cleansing of the Ortodox Christians, all the while the outside world had been presented with the idealized Catholic images (Cardinal Stepinac comes to mind), one of the enlightened and wise devoted scholars-priests or princes like the Habsburgs, trekking the area while relieving the ills and poverty and spreading the word. The cleansing of course, was never done by the real "Catholics", but the results always changed the reality on the ground in favor of the Catholic polities. (the Mel Gibson's father's line of thinking: the nonbelieving wretches are better off dead)
The reason why I have lumped the deceased with the Albright and Hitchens is that all of them should had known better. They had known very well what had been done to the Serbs, but they chose not to articluate it and focus on Serb reactions instead. Likewise, I do realize that Mr. Jacobite and many of the posters here do not have knowledege of the centuries old drive to kick the Serbs out of their lands. Habsburgs had plenty to do with it. I never read anywhere that the deceased apologized for it.
Mr Bogle's article seemed to me to be over the top in it's wording, but that is understandable given that von Habsburg was his friend.
From what I know of it (admittedly very little) my understanding of von Habsburg's pan-Europeanism was mostly in accord with what Mr Bogle has written here, but my opinion of it coincides more with that of NGPM.
In general I had a lot of respect for him, so Dr. Trifkovic's article came as a surprise, but I had to take what he wrote seriously. A response of some kind seemed inevitable.
Well, I would not call for a debate on the character of someone so recently dead. However, the debate is already started. Dr. Trifkovic is certain to respond, so hopefully we can get to the bottom of this.
By the way, Ian Paisley was one of the few lone voices in the West that came out in support of the Serbs at the time! How come he was able to grasp what was going on? is it a mere coincindence that the deceased was instrumental in getting him kicked out of the EU parliament around that time?
Mr. Bailey,
I am quite familiar with Christopher Hitchens: http://amconmag.com/article/2005/oct/10/00022/
And: http://takimag.com/article/hitchens_hubris/#axzz1TWVDX354
And: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/04/09/christopher-hitchens-and-the-days-of-rage/
Comparing Otto von Habsburg to Hitchens is indeed absurd.
As for Paisley, Otto von Habsburg helped remove Paisley from the floor of the European Parliament in 1988. The reason Paisley was physically removed was becuase he was denouncing an invited guest of the Parliament, John Paul II, as "the Anti-Christ." It had nothing to do with Yugoslavia, which at the time was still a unitary Communist dictatorship.
Thanks to everyone for their comments.
I respond to some below.
@Daniel Maxwell
I think you spoke the truth when you wrote: “I do not know enough about the archduke to speak with any authority”.
Indee so.
How much do you actually know about Eastern Europe, Daniel, may I ask?
I warmly encourage you to go away and read more about Archduke Otto. You will then discover that of all the European MEPs before enlargement, he knew more than most about “the politics of Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, and other such hot spots that he saw fit to comment on”.
He was a very competent historian of Europe and knew a great deal about Eastern Europe and Russia.
That is hardly surprising since his family, when he was a child, ruled much of Eastern Europe. In those days the Habsburgs had the difficult task of reconciling the conflicting interests of the peoples of their polyglot empire which included Serbia, Kossovo, Bosnia and the Western Ukraine, among many other nations.
In the end, a parcel of Serb terrorists, out of narrow nationalism, murdered the heir to the imperial throne and so lit the match that led to an horrific war and the mass slaughter of millions – including many Americans.
Archduke Otto’s father bravely and nobly set about trying to end the war and set an exemplary model for his son who faithfully followed it. Narrow nationalists opposed his noble aim of peace at every turn. Some, like the anti-clerical leaders of France and Italy, were determined to see the end of Christian monarchy in Europe and its replacement by secular nationalism.
Archduke Otto opposed the secularisation of Europe, as did his father. He opposed Hitler and risked his life in so doing.
On the other hand, Archduke Otto recognised that other dictators were not like Hitler or Stalin. He considered Franco to be “more like a Latin American dictator”.
In his latter days, Archduke Otto spoke out more and more about the primary need in Europe for a revival of Christianity.
Archduke Otto spoke 7 languages fluently including the fiendishly difficult Hungarian and Lithuanian. He knew numerous other languages well. He was an immensely learned man, as well as a man of great humanity, compassion, gentility, charity, self-discipline and integrity.
It is truly shameful for Dr Trikovic – or anyone else - to traduce his memory so falsely.
@Comment by jack bailey
No, Jack, let’s try it the rational way.
Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who fails to speak in favour of any small nation must necessarily be viscerally opposed to them, pro-Muslim and a supporter of terrorists?
And apparently you think that a man may be called a “Serb-hater” even if no-one can prove that he is!
If you really think these things then rational discussion is clearly not for you.
You also seem to be opposed to “world peace, love among all the diverse nations and... brotherhood”.
Presumably you prefer world war, hatred among the nations and fraternal discord?
The inescapable fact is that every one of the sources produced by Dr Trifkovic to “prove” his false accusations against Archduke Otto is a dud.
Have you proved otherwise? No. Have you even tried? No. Not much “homework” there then, Jack, is there?
The reason that Archduke Otto, at the age of 78, tackled the Rev Iain Paisley in the EU Parliament was because he was ranting, at the top of his voice, that Pope John Paul II, who had been invited to address the Parliament, was Antichrist. Mr Paisley is entitled to his opinion but not to disrupt a public meeting in that way.
Equally, it is not surprising for him to support Serb nationalism. English and Irish Protestants have been doing so for a long time as part of a policy of allying with any power - of whatever stamp - that was as anti-Catholic as they were. So - no surprises there.
I have a degree of respect for Mr Paisley as a man who opposed the murderous acts of IRA terrorists and who called time on the secularism now ascendant in the EU. But I part company with him over his anti-Catholicism which was, until fairly recently, undoubtedly "visceral" (to use Dr Trifkovic's word).
For the record: I do not retract one single word of what I wrote and I shall not do so until someone can prove me wrong.
If they can clearly prove any part wrong then I shall gladly retract it.
But so far no-one has.
And, you certainly haven’t, Jack, have you?
Thank you Mr. Piatak for linking this discussion to your articles about Hitchens; for those who are unaware of or have forgotten Hitchens verbal and written handiwork it will serve as important instruction.
Also, for what is is worth, The Economist magazine obit on Otto von Hapsburg was one of the most respectful and adulatory of any I've ever read there. Coupled with Mr. Bogle's remarks here that would provide enough evidence to give the late Mr. Hapsburg the benefit of separation from the Hitchens and Paisleys of the world.
@ James Bogle: I only glanced over your last comment because I have to say your diatribes tend to go on and on and .... well, you get the point.
However, one thing caught my eye in your last response and that's how pompous and smug you were while criticizing someone (who had admitted he knew little about the topic) only to go on and mistakes yourself.
Here is your quote: "How much do you actually know about Eastern Europe, Daniel, may I ask?
I warmly encourage you to go away and read more about Archduke Otto."
You then go on to add:
"That is hardly surprising since his family, when he was a child, ruled much of Eastern Europe. In those days the Habsburgs had the difficult task of reconciling the conflicting interests of the peoples of their polyglot empire which included Serbia, Kossovo (sic), Bosnia and the Western Ukraine, among many other nations.
In the end, a parcel of Serb terrorists, out of narrow nationalism, murdered the heir to the imperial throne and so lit the match that led to an horrific war and the mass slaughter of millions – including many Americans."
When was Kosovo ever under the rule of the Habsburg Monarchy? The answer: Never! Also, Kosovo is spelled with one "s".
Serbia was only a part of the monarchy for roughly 20 years from 1718 to 1739 then again from 1788 and 1791, so "when he was a child" Serbia was an independent and sovereign nation, not under the Habsburg Monarchy.
If you actually knew anything about WWI you would have heard of the term "blank check", which is a big part of explaining how the war actually started. I'm not going to get into it because I don't have the time to give you a history lesson. So I "warmly encourage you to go away and read more about it".
Lastly, many historians have raised eyebrows as to why Franz Ferdinand and his wife were in Sarajevo on a day that has significant meaning to Serbs (Vidovdan-look it up). It was a slap in the face to the Serbs of Bosnia- yes, Serbs OF Bosnia, also known as Bosnian Serbs. - Up until recently there were a lot of Serbs in Croatia as well. Bosnia and Croatia at this time were under Habsburg rule, both with large Serbian populations, which probably confused you and led you to state that Serbia was a part of the Monarchy. Which, you now know, is incorrect. - Anyway, to get back to the point, why was he there and who sent him there? Remember, this came shortly after Bosnia was annexed and there was a lot of political tension in Bosnia. Also, it is well known that Franz Ferdinand was an outcast in his family- could he have been a sacrificial lamb...perhaps? But this is something you obviously don't want to hear.
These are some of the things you learn at University level (for me it was at Berkeley), so it might not be something you just come across on Wikipedia. I suggest you go to a library. The point is, you should think twice before ridiculing someone about something you also know very little about.
I really hope Dr. Trifkovic responds to your response!
"I think you spoke the truth when you wrote: “I do not know enough about the archduke to speak with any authority”.
Indee so.
How much do you actually know about Eastern Europe, Daniel, may I ask?"
First off, that second Daniel was not I. I always post with my full name, and I dont think I have to had known the man personally to find fault in his very public positions.
As someone who has had some admiration for his family, I am disappointed in the path he has led it. The central question ought to be: are we fighting for Christendom or unification at any price?
I have just noticed Mr Bogle's reply @2.
Let me say that in retrospect, you make a strong case for your friend, in whom I did find many admirable qualities. But if he ever misgivings about the EU project, they were not widely spoken of or even known to this reader. Publicly, he always maintained a stance of strong support for it, and I believe his son has done so as well (you of course, would know better than I).
Maybe it is that I do admire the Hapsburgs and their history (after all, I am descended from some of them) so much that it stings me to see their patriarch not even speak strongly about the anti-Christian direction the EU has been on, really almost since it got started.
Mr. Piatak, of course you are almost right, Mr. Hitchens and prince Otto do not have anything in common. However, I have not implied any such thing other than that they were among the people who understood shall we say the "Serb problem"and chose to keep quiet or misinterpret it.
As for Mr. Paisley matter, I will stand corrected and I appreciate that you have pointed this out. I have indeed made a post in haste without reading up the whole story of the incident and I have made a gratuitous insinuation for which I apologize. However my rhetorical question still stands, which is why was Mr. Paisley able to understand and speak on the gist of the "Serb problem", while someone like Prince Otto, who would have been far more knowledgable, was not.
Since we are on the topic, I cannot resist posting this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A21D7zp1Vk
Magnificent, even if it is only a bittersweet reminder of the Christian Europe that was.
Mr. Jacobite, thank you for your response. I have gotten quite used to being patronized over the years for things like not wishing for world peace or for being irrational. Irrational in this case means asking why such a highly erudite historian with strong Balkan ties and a speaker of seven languages (we are tied there although my seventh would be Chinese and not the impossibly difficult Hungarian!) did not speak on one of the most pressing European issues of the time, which is the theft of Serb lands and Serb identity over a period of a century. Does that indicate that he might have been anti-Serb, well I posit to you that it most certainly does.
I would repsond fully to your remarks, however I feel that the honor belongs to Dr. Trifkovic. If he does not, I will be happy to answer you further. There is one paragraph that I do feel compelled to comment on right away:
"In the end, a parcel of Serb terrorists, out of narrow nationalism, murdered the heir to the imperial throne and so lit the match that led to an horrific war and the mass slaughter of millions – including many Americans."
This statement qualifies as Serb hating par excellence. Whatever your knowledge on the assassins may be and I assume it to be quite thourough, the motive cannot be dismissed as "narrow nationalism" .Furthermore, apart of trying to lay the ultimate blame for a world debacle on a band of unshaven, unwashed barbarians, you are also implying that the same have rightfully been managed up to that point by someone highly qualified, self appointed, yet quite sophisticated, and perhaps that would be the erudite historian's father. Indeed he would have beem someone who knows what is best for the savages whether Serb, Croat, Slovene or Muslim, all under the guise of Catholicism! This sentiment has been kept alive in the West ever since the assassination and is the reason why there is a debacle called the Balkans to this day.
As for Mr. Ceric, under the circumstances and realities of today, do you sincerly believe that a man could have achieved such stature as a non hater of Serbs. After all in the times of Jihad it is his duty to act like one.
The quality of Dr. Trifkovic's article is in pointing out that even in the marginal circumstances of power there are plenty of Serb haters, well hidden and working behind the scenes. If we are to be worried about irrationality in men, perhaps we should be looking among such men instead.
Jack; I have trouble speaking one language and when I need Chinese my foster daughter will translate. I have never spoken out on the most pressing S.E. Asian issue of the times-the Spratly Islands dispute- does that indicate I might be Sinophobic ?
Good to hear from you Mr. Schulz and of course quite humorous as ever. Prima facie yes and no, however I believe Dr. T answered this one in the new article as a yes.
TP: I"m glad you could not resist, but "bittersweet" does not do it justice.. " der Glanz der vergangenen Zeiten" does.
Mr. Schulz:
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I will confess to not being familiar with that magnificent Michael Haydn Requiem until I stumbled upon that clip, but I was not surprised to read afterward that Mozart was quite familiar with it and indeed was likely influenced by it in his Requiem.
I was, though, familiar with this tune written by Michael's brother Joseph. I think you will enjoy this as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5V98E3e9eA&feature=related
Mr. Bogle,
Even if we suppose that your points are 110% flawless and correct, (which, I am sure is not the case), you lack having grown up in a communist country where ranting like yours are akin to:
- you can't believe in God because nobody ever saw God or touched God.
That type on non-sequitur was common demagoguery during the communist rule.
Here is a few more examples of betraying the simplest logic.
a) If I can't touch smell or package any oxygen - oxygen can not exist.
b) If a song can not be shipped in an envelopet - but only gets transcribed by sympols and it fails to sing upon opening the envelope it is not a song.
c) The Nazis did not kill 6 million Jews, the killed 5,999,993 Jews, one half-Jew and one Catholic who was a first door neighbor to a Jew - therefore all Nazi casualties are inaccurate.
Splitting hairs or finding faults does not constitute a proven fact to the opposite end - I am surprised that this essential view on Logic escaped you - which can only mean that your writing has an agenda (outside of the realm of Truth).
With logic like that you would not pass the high school Logic taught in Belgrade high schools (gymnasiums)
I had intended to watch the funeral on line, but missed it and watched the you tube clips the day after.
Mr Piatak, the second one by Joseph is great, but am I the only one who thinks it sounds oddly like Deutschland uber alles?
Allen @29: it was hijacked by the Nazis, yes, as the title you describe but it is still a great hymn of the Church (tune = "Austria"), obviously with vastly different words.
Mr. Wilson,
Yes, it is the same music used for "Deutschland uber Alles," but Haydn wrote the music for the Holy Roman Emperor, and the Prussians later decided to use it for their anthem. Haydn was quite fond of the music, and later wrote some variations based on it.
@NGPM (reaction 12)
"Baudouin’s infamous son"
Baudouin of Belgium had no son.The current king, Albert II, is his
brother.Crown prince Philippe is the son of Albert II.
Best regards,
MT Depré
(Belgium)
Â. Thank you kindly, Monsieur Depré, for the corrective.
Dear Dr Fleming,
I have clearly upset you and I am sorry for that. That was certainly never my intention.
The reasons I wrote the below letter to you was not to be "peremptory" and "presumptuous" but, on the contrary, out of courtesy to you, since I did not think it was courteous or right to respond to you in any challenging way on your own website. You have now responded to me on your website but without letting anyone see the letter to which you respond. That is unusual, I think you will agree. An English court would certainly allow the other letter to be seen.
I entirely agree with you that, although I have studied it for many years, it is very hard to study the history of the Eastern Empire and its offshoots and that the more one studies the more one realises how little one knows of it. You are, I believe, quite right to say so and I entirely endorse your comments.
But I set myself a more modest task.
I did not set out to prove a case but rather to rebut one i.e. that the very recently dead Archduke Otto was a friend and supporter of Islamic terrorism and/or viscerally anti-Serb. I examined the links provided by Dr Trifkovic and found that they did not prove his case and were wanting.
Debunking links is not, indeed, the same as debunking an argument, but if someone puts those links forward as evidence of his claims then he cannot be surprised if they are subjected to analysis.
I did not (and do not) defend Dr Ceric nor, indeed, Rugova. I merely pointed out that the links did not prove what was claimed.
I certainly do not defend Islamicist regimes that seeks the power to persecute Christians. I certainly never said that when Muslims are 51%, they can enslave Christians. Anyone thinking I am saying such a thing does not know me very well. Likewise, I do not defend Albanian oppressors, either. Neither, by the way, did Archduke Otto and Dr Trifkovic has not proved that he did. Archduke Otto never made common cause with Kossovan Muslim thugs, nor, indeed, with any thugs. He (and I), as members of the Order of Malta, are fully aware of the historical threat to Europe from Ottoman incursion and of our Order's long history, over many centuries, of defence of Europe therefrom. But even the Order sought to make alliances with some Muslims in order to divide and conquer the invaders.
Which brings me back to my article: I was defending the good name of Archduke Otto from unjust slurs. That was my case. I am always happy to be shown where I have gone wrong but Dr Trifkovic did not gainsay my challenge to his sources. He has had every opportunity so to do.
You conclude thus:
"In the end, your defense of Ceric and Rugova is all too much like the defense made by Holocaust revisionists who might have made a contribution to 20th century history if they had not been so eager to whitewash Hitler and blacken the allies".
This is offensive - especially to me as I am Jewish on my mother's side - and I hope you will behave like the gentleman that I believe you are and withdraw this comment with an apology.
Yours sincerely,
James Bogle
For the benefit of your reasders I reproduce my "peremptory" and "presumptuous" letter, below:
Dear Tom,
Very many thanks for allowing me to comment on the Chronicles website. It's been a pleasure and a challenge for which I'm most grateful.
I did not want to respond to your comment, not least since you are editor, and at least not before making sure I hadn't missed something.
Your comment was:
"I applaud Mr. Bogle for wanting to defend a man he admired. He is, however, quite wrong about the implementation of Sharia law and extremely naive about the Muslim menace. While I hate to give advice to advocates, I think he lost his case by more or less defending Islam. Sentimentality toward Muslims, joined with a strong polemical spirit against the Orthodox world, do not make a persuasive argument.
It is hard, for those who have not spent much of their lives studying the history of the Balkans and the East Roman Empire, to form an intelligent and accurate view of these things. Things are bad in the States, of course, but at least we did not give John Julius Norwich to the world. In all these cases, it is best to begin by knowing what one does and does not know, and however much Mr. Bogle may know of the Dual Monarchy, he has quite obviously not explored much that is east and south of Vienna."
What I don't get is where, in anything I have written, you seriously consider that I have "defended Islam" or demonstrated any kind of "srong polemical spirit against the Orthodox world". I have been at pains to do neither. I'd truly be grateful if you could point to me where exactly you think I have done either.
What I have been doing is defending Archduke Otto from a series of very inaccurate smears. I do not defend Islam but I do defend the right of any human being - Muslims included - not be to be accused of doing things that they have not done. I cannot see how that can be genuinely construed as "defending Islam"?
Dr Trifkovic accuses Dr Ceric of things that he has not said or done. Is Dr Ceric to be refused ordinary, fair treatment simply becuase he is a Muslim? If so, then why?
There is a difference between defending the man and defending the religion, is there not?
As a matter of fact, I have been spending many years of my life studying the history of the Eastern Roman Empire and I certainly did not give John Julius Norwich to the world!
However, if you think I have made any error regarding the "east and south of Vienna" would it not be fairer to say in what way, rather than make an unspecified and unsupported criticism such as this?
Finally, I live in England. We are at least as menaced by Islam as the USA and have a far greater population, pro rata, of Muslims than the USA. I am only too well aware of the dangers. But does this mean that I should abandon all sense of justice when I see someone falsely accused?
I would very grateful for your comments.
Yours sincerely,
Jamie Bogle.
There is one link that Dr. Trifkovic provided where Mr. Ceric, in his own words, for a Bosnian magazine explains how Mr. Habsburg told him the touching story of how a couple of "Our" Bosnian Muslims saved his life and warned him to get out of Munich on the basis of inside information that the SS was after him. It is telling that the newspaper did not ask what these Muslims were doing within the SS as if this was completely normal. There is a mindset there Mr. Bogle, haven't you figured it out yet?
@ Jack Bailey - Where is that link, please?
I think if someone saved your life you might just be grateful to them. Archduke Otto was doubtless no different in that respect.
Your assumption is that the Muslims were members of the SS because they had information that the SS were after him.
That does not follow at all and is typical of the kind of random illogicality that has characterised some of your more extreme comments.
There is, indeed, a mindset but it is associated with those who think that one may comdemn a man without evidence. And it does not recommend itself to rationality.
Jack, my friend: i own dogs , don't have one in this fight and don't want to be in anyone's doghouse. i suggest withdrawal and declaration of victory- as per tf's ruling- before defeat is snatched from ... well you get my drift. eagle; the animus you perceive might not be related to ethnicity but personality. excuse my lack of tact.
@ Tom Piatak - thank you for your comments, refreshingly sensible compared with some above. I fear that you may be labelled a wicked "Schwarzgelber" by some other correspondents.
You are perfectly right about the Kaiserhymne. It was swiped by the Prussianised German Empire and the words changed so that God was demoted and Prussian glory extolled. It was later further manipulated by the Nazis so that there ar enow many ill-informed people who think it a Nazi tune, rather than Haydn's birthday tune for the Holy Roman Emperor.
But that's modern education for you.
I'm grateful, too, for your links to those articles about Christopher Hitchens. Useful ammo - thanks!
The link is in the second article where I "came with this "randomly illogical" conclusion: Some Bosnian Muslims were living in Munich probably as "exchange" students, which was oh so common at that time in the late 30s. Being so cosmopolitan, naturally they knew Mr. Habsburg via some of their mutual girlfriends, while they also knew some men that knew Gestapo men. How? Probably from their weekly multicultural poker games. So they were able to save his life. Yes, that must be it!
The mindset I am describing Mr. Bogle, is the one in which Mr. Habsburg never gave a hoot about Yugoslavia, most likely resented it and always associated with those who tried to undermine it. He had the same feelings about Orthodoxy and the Serbs. I'd venture to say that this is a widely accepted image of Mr. Habsburg in the Orthodox Europe, based on who he was associating with and what he did or said. You can interpret it in the Western politically correct way, but in the East people read it between the lines rather differently.
While this may qualify as an "extreme" comment under your standards here it is: Mr. Habsburg is in the same league with Richard Hollbrooke, Mrs. Albright, Clintons, Wesley clark, Jamie Shea, BOb Dole, Tom Lantos etc., that is stuck up Westerners with power who think they know what is best for the Serbs while in fact knowing almost nothing and understanding even less. And when someone tries to tell them that, why of course these inferior critics are always explained away as irrational and extremist.
But this is nothing new for me, I've gotten used to it over the years. As Mr. Fleming has indicated, this exchange is rather unprofitable and as my buddy Mr. Schulz is pointing out, it is time to end it, so this is my last post on this matter.
In parting, let's remember that the evil that men do lives long after them, the good is oft interred with the bones, to paraphrase the Bard. May Mr. Habsburg rest in peace. I can only hope Mr. Bogle, that you find some time to visit Kosovo, Knin, Jasenovac, Montenegro and study the history and culture, including from the point of view that you so obviously resent right now. You probably know Helmut Rumpel's work on Slavs within the Habsburg empire. Unfortunately most of Yugoslav histories are only available in local languages which is a big part of the problem, but Dr. Trifkovic's excellent book on Ustase is in English and is indispensible for any Westerner who wishes to understand the Balkans. Perhaps then we can have a real "rational" discussion some day.