How did those with the most to lose feel about the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire? And how did they characterize these feelings of grief, anger, and disappointment in their memoirs? These are among the questions Hungarian historian Gergely Romsics seeks to answer in his recently translated monograph. To do so, he carefully studied one hundred memoirs of individuals broadly defined as the elite of the empire, from high-ranking political figures to members of the clergy and senior newspaper editors. Some of Romsics's memoirists are the most famous leaders of the empire and successor states, such as Count Gyula Andrássy, Miklós Horthy, and Karl Renner. Notably Romsics includes Oszkár Jászi, author of the classic work, The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy. Romsics focuses on Austrians and Hungarians, only including a few individuals of Slavic origins whose loyalty rested firmly with the empire. This is because he is interested in comparing the “reactions of the losers” (2).

Romsics further divides these losers into three groups, which he calls “communities of memory” (177). These are the imperial elite (or “Old Austrians”), the Hungarian political elite, and the Austro-Germans (or “New Austrians”). Each group is treated in a separate section, and their early responses to the fall of the monarchy are compared in Romsics's conclusions. His findings about these reactions will not surprise scholars in the field, but they will find Romsics's categorization of Austrian elites intriguing. The Old Austrians clung to the memory of the House of Habsburg and wondered if they and Austria itself had any identity without a relationship to the monarchy. The Austro-Germans had little attachment to the Habsburgs, with the exception of a few individuals who believed that Francis Ferdinand could have saved the empire if he had lived. Instead, this group focused on their German national identity and believed that the empire was doomed when it abandoned its German character in the Compromise of 1867. All saw the founding of a new state as their primary goal, and their memoirs distinctly separated the new era from that of the defunct monarchy. Many favored Anschluss with Germany, although Romsics's category includes a wide variety of political affiliations and beliefs. The strongest commonality between the Old and New Austrians was their blame of Hungary for the empire's decline and fall. Like the Austro-Germans, the Hungarian memoirists were more attached to their national identity than to the monarchy. Their memoirs focused on grief and anger over Hungary's enormous territorial losses in the Treaty of Trianon rather than on the fall of the Habsburgs.

Romsics is interested in what he calls “the poetics of memoirs,” how language, symbols, and metaphors function. He makes keen observations about the use of verb tense and chronology. For example, the Old Austrian memoirs, characterized by deep nostalgia for the House of Habsburg, are more likely than New Austrians or Hungarians to mix verb tense and to relate narratives nonlinearly. Romsics calls this “mythical time,” with its emphasis on ritual and symbolism.

Romsics's work is based on a wide body of literature on collective memory and postmodern theory. Unfortunately, the author includes too many overly long explanations of the work of well-known scholars, such as Michel Foucault, Maurice Halbwachs, Mircea Eliade, Roland Barthes, Victor Turner, and Africanist Jan Vansina. His own observations are frequently lost within theoretical discourses and summaries. The book would have benefited enormously from better editing.

Romsics admits “the authors [of the memoirs] were not examined as historical personages but only in the context of their role as agents of memory” (176). This is a shame because Romsics worked with the writings of such a rich cast of characters who left behind intimate reflections. Discussing their individual personalities and actions would have strengthened the narrative.

Scholars in the field will find the appendix—a who's who of the Austrian and Hungarian political elites—extremely useful. Romsics's work contributes to a growing body of literature on commemoration, memory, and symbolism in the field of Austrian studies. Most important, Romsics reminds us that Habsburg history does not end in 1918 but continues into the mid twentieth century through the narratives and memories of those most intimately connected with the empire.