Authors

Discussion

The Austro-Hungarian Army’s regulation of language diversity was more than a mere policy—it was a reflection of the empire's complex ethnic and linguistic tapestry. Soldiers came from numerous ethnic backgrounds, each speaking different languages, necessitating a structured approach to military training. Regulations mandated the use of German as the primary language of command while accommodating other languages to cater to the multilingual reality of the troops, the so called regimental language system. This right arose from Article 19 of the Austrian Constitution, which stipulated the right to use one's own language in contact with state authorities.

However, the use of one's own language during military service finally was not only a right, but also became an obligation. There was only unofficial ways to escape to be put into an "ethnic box" for the duration of three (later two) year compulsory military service. Occasionally, primary sources report on soldiers' interest in being trained under other language mates in order to use their military service to learn another language. However, this was generally not permitted. In addition, the army also tried to find out the 'correct' language of bilinguals and multilinguals to ensure that they were assigned to the in their view correct national training unit. In this case, however, there was often a tendency to put them in German units out of nationalism and/or convenience. The third case in which someone was forcibly placed in an 'ethnic box' occurred when someone only spoke an idiom that was not officially used in the army, be it Ladin, Yiddish or Furlan.

My paper will discuss the above mentioned cases, arguments, backgrounds and outcomes when a language right turned into an obligation, both using autobiographical primary sources and the ones from military authorities in response.