In its final decades, the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary crafted a series of public commemorations and celebrations aimed at enhancing the patriotism of its citizens. These events took several forms, including parades, the construction of monuments honoring Austrian historical figures, and the celebration of anniversaries and state holidays. Often, these events occurred in schools or with the participation from schoolchildren, a practice common throughout Europe and the United States. As public education became a standard feature of the modern state in the nineteenth century, governments quickly realized that schools could do more than simply educate children. They could also be used to shape how children conceptualized their government, their state, and their culture. In Austria-Hungary, these school events sought to create a sense of cohesion and belonging among the Monarchy’s diverse population. In order to accomplish this task, Habsburg civic education relied heavily on teaching the history of the Monarchy in a way that emphasized the shared sacrifices and struggles of its peoples and by crafting an Austrian identity that was supranational and imperial in nature. This identity asserted that anyone who lived in and was loyal to the Habsburg Monarchy could rightful consider himself as Austrian.

Efforts of this kind were an essential part of patriotic development in the Monarchy, aimed at stressing the unity and cohesion of the multinational state, arguing that its diversity was a strength, not a weakness. The works of Pieter Judson and Tara Zahra make clear that nationalists attempted to use education as a tool of nationalization, while also demonstrating that national identity was not as rigidly formed as earlier scholarship assumed. Instead, there was a substantial amount of ambivalence and indifference toward national identity. Pieter M. Judson, Guardians of the Nation: Activists on the Language Frontiers of Imperial Austria (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006), 19–65. Tara Zahra, Kidnapped Souls: National Indifference and the Battle for Children in the Bohemian Lands, 1900–1948 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008), 13–79. For further discussion of this national indifference and the efforts of nationalists, see Jeremy King, Budweisers into Czechs and Germans: A Local History of Bohemian Politics, 1848-1948 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002). Keely Stauter-Halsted, The Nation in the Village: The Genesis of Peasant National Identity in Austrian Poland, 1848–1914 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001). The fluidity of identity meant that there was space for the Habsburg state to develop the loyalty of its subjects, and as Judson recently argued, Habsburg officials aggressively crafted and developed their image in an effort to accomplish this task. Pieter M. Judson, The Habsburg Empire: A New History (Cambridge: The Belknap Press, 2016), 4–8. As a result of these conditions, it is natural that these officials would use public schools to develop an Austrian identity that could transcend national division.

Obviously, loyalty to the monarch, Franz Joseph, was essential to this identity. He, and the Habsburg dynasty as a whole, provided the connective thread which bound the state together. Because of this, Habsburg schools utilized every opportunity to celebrate the monarch and commemorate his achievements. One of the most common ways by which schools accomplished this goal was through school events held in the emperor’s honor. As the Upper Austrian Provincial schoolboard noted throughout its reports in the 1880s, these events provided an ideal opportunity to strengthen “the loyalty, unbreakable attachment, and love of the fatherland and exalted dynasty.” OÖLA, LSR, box 22, Jahreshauptbericht für Mittelschulen in Oberösterreich, 1884. OÖLA, LSR, box 23, Jahreshauptbericht für Mittelschulen in Oberösterreich, 1887. Celebrations honoring Franz Joseph were held in every school across the Monarchy, regardless of region or the nationality of its students and in spite of the Monarchy’s federalized education system, the format of these events were similar throughout the Austrian half of the state. For more on the organization of Austrian schools, see Peter Urbanitsch, “Österreichs Schulen: Organisatorischer und struktureller Wandel 1848 bis 1914,” in: Kindheit und Schule im Ersten Weltkrieg, Hannes Stekl, Christa Hämmerle, Ernst Bruckmüller, eds. (Vienna: New Academic Press, 2016), 45–73. The consistency of these celebrations resulted from the guidance provided by the Ministry of Religion and Education, which supervised Austrian schools, as well as a general consensus regarding the structure of school ceremonies. Comparing the celebrations described by the school boards of Upper Austria, Lower Austria, Styria, Moravia, and Bohemia reflects this consistency. For such a comparison, see Jahresbericht über das k.k. akademisches Gymnasium in Wien für das Schuljahr 1868–1869 (Vienna: Verlag des k.k. akademischen Gymnasiums, 1869), 50. OÖLA, LSR, box 76, doc. 1599, discussing schools in Perg. OÖLA, LSR, box 76, Jahreshauptbericht über die allgemeinen Volks- und Bürgerschulen und die Bildungsanstalten für Lehrer- und Lehrerinnen in Steiermark, 1906; Programm des kaiserl. königl. Gymnasiums in Olmütz am Schlusse des Schuljahres 1901 (Olmütz: Franz Slawiks Buchdruckerei, 1901), 59. AHMP, SVZ, NAD 1042, Německá škola chlapeckă v Karlíně, Palackého 33 Karton: Kronika, 1877, October 4, 1877. The commemorations of Franz Joseph and his contributions to Austria-Hungary sought to create a sense of unity among a diverse state. They also provided a template for the future Austrian Republic to follow decades after the Monarchy collapsed.

As Austrians emerged from the carnage of the Second World War, desperate to develop an Austrian identity that would allow them to distance themselves from the war, Nazism, and radical German nationalism, Austrian schools began to celebrate the presidents of the new (Second) Austrian Republic. The structure of these celebrations possessed a surprising degree of similarity to the commemorations of the Habsburg emperor half a century earlier. The continuity of such events speaks to the potentially unconscious legacy of Habsburg commemoration in postwar Austria and illustrates the power of administrative memory even after states collapse.

Before continuing, it is important to discuss the parameters of this paper. Considering the size and diversity of the Habsburg Monarchy, it would be impossible to provide a comprehensive discussion of school events in all of Austria-Hungary. The nature of the Compromise of 1867, which created the Dual Monarchy contribute to this constraint. Since the Compromise divided the Habsburg Monarchy into two nearly sovereign states, education policy differed in Austria and Hungary. Because of this fact, and due to this paper’s interest in the influence of school events on the Austrian Republic, I will only be discussing schools from the parts of the Dual Monarchy that became the Austrian Republic. Additionally, in exploring the legacy of Habsburg school celebrations, this paper will look specifically at the early years of the Second Republic. It will rely on existing scholarship when discussing the First Republic and the period of the Anschluss.

Beginning in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, Austrian schools held several events commemorating Franz Joseph and the Monarchy throughout the year. The nature of these celebrations varied from year to year, marking the anniversary of significant events in the state’s history or celebrating major milestones of the monarch or dynasty. Such commemorations included the 600th anniversary of Rudolf I’s acquisition of Austria, the centennial of Joseph II’s birth, or the centennial of the victories over Napoleon. For example WStLA, SSR, 2.2.2.3.101.B51, Schulchronik – Schule St. Stefan, entry for April 24, 1879. WStLA, SSR, 2.2.2.3.203.B51, Schulchronik – Holzhausergasse, entry for December 27, 1881. WStLA, SSR, 2.2.2.3.506.B51, Schulchronik – Einsiedlergasse, entry for May 26, 1909. Each year, schools would have at least two patriotic celebrations, one for the emperor’s name day and another for the empresses’ name day. By the end of Franz Joseph’s reign, it was also common for schools to commemorate the anniversary of his ascension to the throne on December 2, 1848. The decision to honor the monarchs on their name day, which corresponded to the feast day of the saint sharing their name, rather than the monarch’s birthday, resulted from logistical realities. Franz Joseph was born on August 18, Empress Elisabeth on December 24. Since schools were not in session on either of these dates, it was difficult to organize school events at these times.

The Ministry of Religion and Education, responsible for crafting Austrian educational policy, established the general guidelines for school celebrations, deciding how many events would be held in the school year and setting the dates for each. Local and provincial school boards were then responsible for facilitating their implementation. For example ÖStA, AVA, MKU, f. 4189, memorandum from the Ministry of Religion and Education, 6196-1886. Plans developed by the Vienna city council for celebrations of Franz Joseph’s seventieth birthday further illustrate this coordination. Municipal and Provincial Archives of Vienna, 3.1.5.5.A62.2, 70. Geburtstag Kaiser FJ I 1900 0818, Fest-Ordnung, 6944/1900. Individual schools then organized their events, which took place during normal school hours. While the school boards provided general guidelines for organizing such commemorations, each school created its own programs. Reflecting the continued influence of religion over Austrian society, each celebration began with a religious service. Considering Austria’s protection of religious tolerance, students attended this service at their individual house of worship. Catholics attended mass at their parish church, Protestants had services at the church of their denomination, and Jews either attended a synagogue or went to the home of their rabbi if their local Jewish population was too small to have a synagogue. AStL, B0019, Disziplinar-Vorschriften für die Schüler des k.k. Staats-Gymnasiums Linz, 1872, 14, 15; Disziplinar-Vorschriften für die Schüler des k.k. Staats-Gymnasiums Linz, 1881, 15, 16.

After these services, students met in the main hall or gymnasium of the school. The room would be decorated with at least the Austrian flag and a picture or bust of the emperor. Typically schools would also use flowers, bunting, and other decorations to create a “festive” environment. When writing about the various school celebrations, most year-end reports from schools made some comment about the room being “festively decorated,” often with detailed descriptions of those decorations. See for example AStL, B0027, Dreizehnter Jahresbericht des bischöflichen Privat-Gymnasiums am “Collegium Petrinum,” 1910, 43. WStLA, Stadtschulrat, SSR, 2.2.2.3.1601, Schulchronik – Abelegasse, entry for October 4, 1900. Often these decorations could be quite elaborate. For example, in an event honoring Franz Joseph’s visit to Linz in 1903, the Collegium Petrinum Gymnasium lined the road to the school with the black and yellow flags of the Habsburg dynasty and decorated the school’s main hall with oil paintings of every Habsburg emperor from Rudolf I to Joseph I, complete with the individual mottos of each ruler. AStL, B0027, Kollegium Petrinum (1898–1918), Sechster Jahresbericht des bischöflichen Privat-Gymnasiums am “Collegium Petrinum” in Urfahr für das Schuljahr 1902/03, 4-6. Besides students, these events included the faculty of the school and parents. Local, provincial, and sometimes state-level dignitaries joined the celebration, by invitation, and typically offered speeches. These speeches were given along with student readings of patriotic poems and the singing of patriotic songs. The event ended with the signing of the Austrian Volkshymne and well-wishes offered in the name of the emperor. WStLA, SSR, 2.2.2.3.402, Schulchronik - Hauptschule für Mädchen, Vierter Bezirk, Graf Starhemberggasse, entries for November 11, 1887; May 12, 1888; January 15, 1891; July 14, 1900. 2.2.2.3.203.B51, Schulchronik – Holzhausergasse, entries for November 10, 1877; November 30, 1880; December 27, 1882; July 14, 1900; SSR, 2.2.2.3.506.B51, Schulchronik – Einsiedlergasse, entry for October 4, 1910.

Speakers at these events had control over their individual speeches, but they always reflected on the importance of the day and reinforced the value of patriotism and loyalty. The consistency of speeches from school to school and from speaker to speaker reflects the existence of a general consensus regarding the history of Austria-Hungary and the qualities of Franz Joseph. This consistency also reflected the fact that local leaders often received suggested themes for their speeches. For example, in 1908, for Franz Joseph’s sixtieth jubilee, Mayor Karl Lueger of Vienna distributed sample speeches for his representatives to give. It was clear he only intended for minor changes to be made to these remarks. WStLA, KBK, 3.1.5.5.A63.4, Sample speech distributed by Mayor Karl Lueger, Document 16500.

In general, the speeches honoring Franz Joseph asserted that the emperor was a model of ideal leadership. They praised him for his piety and virtue, offering examples from his life as proof of these qualities. In particular, speeches often described “his faith and sense of duty,” along with his tireless work ethic and dedication. WStLA, SSR, Materialien-Schulveranstaltungen (uncollected materials), Festrede by Franziska Wolf. This dedication gained even more resonance as speakers reflected on the personal tragedies Franz Joseph suffered. They lamented the execution of his brother, Maximilian, in Mexico; the death of his son Rudolph; and the assassination of his wife, Elisabeth. Yet in spite of these personal challenges, Franz Joseph focused only on the welfare of Austria. WStLA, SSR, 2.2.2.3.203.B51, Schulchronik – Holzhausergasse, entry for December 2, 1898. Considering these remarks were given in schools, speakers often used Franz Joseph’s support for education as evidence of this concern. They rarely missed an opportunity to describe his patronage of schools and his support for the arts and sciences. Jahresbericht über das k.k. akademisches Gymnasium in Wien für das Schuljahr 1870–1871 (Vienna: Verlag des k.k. akademischen Gymnasiums, 1871), 82.

By reflecting on his devotion to his family, as well as his country, Franz Joseph embodied the paternalistic ideal of nineteenth century kingship. He became, in the words of one teacher, a “faithful father to all of his subjects.” WStLA, SSR, 2.2.2.3.102.B51, Schulchronik – Pfarrhauptschule Heiligenkreuzerhof, Band 1, entry for December 2, 1873. Another speech given in 1900 at a Viennese elementary school developed this concept further, describing Franz Joseph as a noble “father of his country (Landesvater)” who “over the long years always showed concern for the welfare and happiness of his peoples.” This concern earned the “complete love and steadfast (unerschütterlich) loyalty” of his peoples. As evidence of this concern, one only need look to his deep concern for the poor, his patronage of schools and hospitals, and his tireless efforts to reform the Austrian government. It also reminded listeners of the shared moments of “happiness and joy as well as grief and sorrow” which bound the monarch and the peoples of Austria. WStLA, SSR, 2.2.2.3.907.B51, Schulchronik – Liechtensteinstrasse, Band 1, entry for July 14, 1900.

The speeches given at these celebrations were reinforced through other media in Austrian society. Individuals could purchase the same pictures and busts schools displayed, biographies of Franz Joseph written to commemorate jubilees and anniversaries reiterated the themes of the speeches given in schools, and as Daniel Unowsky points out, individuals could even buy marzipan likenesses of the emperor. Daniel L. Unowsky, The Pomp and Politics of Patriotism: Imperial Celebrations in Habsburg Austria, 1848-1916 (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2005), 105–44. By the end of his life, Franz Joseph became a symbol of unity, piety, devotion and good leadership. The commemoration of the monarch continued after Franz Joseph’s death, but obviously ended when the Monarchy collapsed in 1918. For examples of the celebrations of Emperor Karl I, see WStLA, SSR, 2.2.2.3.604.B51, Schulchronik – Sonnenuhrgasse, Band 2, entry for November 3, 1917; Municipal and Provincial Archives of Vienna, SSR, 2.2.2.3.1601.B51, Schulchronik – Abelegasse, Entries for November 3, 1917, November 21, 1917. As the new Austrian state transcended from being part of a large, multinational empire into an independent republic, it had to reconcile its imperial past and craft a new sense of identity. This process was long and difficult.

During the interwar period, Austrian identity remained in flux and poorly formed. Considering the state’s imperial legacy, this is hardly surprising. As nationalism developed in Central Europe in the late nineteenth century, few argued that an Austrian nation existed. Austrian identity was, by necessity, supranational and imperial. One was Austrian because one lived in the Habsburg Monarchy. By this logic, a Czech-speaker living in Bohemia was just as Austrian as a German-speaker living in Styria. Albert F. Reiterer, Nation und Nationalbewusstsein in Österreich (Vienna: VWGÖ, 1988), 36. As a result, most Austrians who lived in the Austrian Republic after World War I considered themselves to be members of the German nation, though not members of the German nation-state. The fact that many called the new state the Republic of German-Austria (much to the frustration of the Allied powers), and the fact that there was strong support for eventual union with Germany reflects this reality. Franz Mathis, “1,000 Years of Austria and Austrian Identity: Founding Myths,” in: Austrian Historical Memory and National Identity, eds. Günter Bischof and Anton Pelinka, (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1997), 22.

While many of Austria’s interwar leaders supported the possibility of joining Germany, the treaties which ended World War I made this an impossibility. As a result, as Heidemarie Uhl and Albert Reiterer note, the First Republic was “the state no one wanted”, lacking broad support from the general population and even among its own leaders. Heidemarie Uhl, Zwischen Versöhnung und Verstörung: Eine Kontroverse um Österreichs historische Identität fünfzig Jahre nach dem Anschluß (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 1988), 52. Reiterer, Nation und Nationalbewusstsein in Österreich, 56. Not only did many Austrians doubt the economic vitality of the new state, few considered themselves to be members of an Austrian nation. As a result, the new republic was left to try to create an Austrian national identity among lingering questions of Austria’s German character. Uhl, Zwischen Versöhnung und Verstörung, 46.

Austrian leaders attempted to achieve this goal by distancing Austria from its Habsburg past. In the early years of the republic, the commemorations and celebrations typical to the Monarchy gave way to a state eager to align society to a mindset that reflected the socialist and democratic principles of the republic’s founders. For an overview of these efforts, see Douglas Patrick Campbell, “The Shadow of the Habsburgs: Memory and National Identity in Austrian Politics and Education, 1918–1955” (Ph.D. diss., The University of Maryland, College Park, 2006), 1–201. While the new Austrian state sought to distance itself from its Habsburg past, it nevertheless maintained much of the governmental structure and bureaucracy that existed in Habsburg Austria. This bureaucratic legacy was typical to the monarchy’s successor states. See Pieter M. Judson, “'Where Our Commonality is Necessary…': Rethinking the End of the Habsburg Monarchy,” Austrian History Yearbook 48 (April 2017): 12. Furthermore, in recognition of the fact that most Austrians identified as members of the German nation, the leaders of the First Republic attempted to forge a sense of “Austrianess” that embraced German national culture while simultaneously emphasizing Austria’s unique contribution to that culture. Reiterer, Nation und Nationalbewusstsein in Österreich, 37.

These efforts intensified as the republic fell under the conservative, authoritarian control of Engelbert Dollfuß. Even though Dollfuß’ regime vigorously supported Austria’s independence from Germany, it continued to distance Austrian identity from its imperial history. Rather than relying on Austria’s Habsburg legacy, Dollfuß promoted an Austrian identity based on the fusion of traditional German culture and Catholic Christianity. Under Dollfuß, educators presented the Austrian nation as the final “bulwark” of German culture, its only defense against the barbarizing influence of the Prussian dominated German state. Walter Wiltschegg, Österreich – der Zweite Deutsche Staat? Der nationale Gedanke in der Ersten Republik (Graz: Leopold Stockerverlag, 1992), 152–56. Whole school celebrations utilized images from the Habsburg past, they became symbols of Austria’s contribution to German culture, not a celebration of its imperial legacy. Ibid., 213, 214.

The Austrian national identity promoted by Dollfuß’ regime put it in direct conflict with the radical, pro-union German nationalism of the National Socialists who were becoming a strong voice in Austrian politics. When the Nazi regime in Germany engineered the annexation of Austria in 1938, it was obviously this latter group that became the dominant voice in Austrian political culture. Once union was achieved, the Nazi regime made every effort to expunge Austria’s sense of cultural and political distinction within German speaking Europe. For more on the development of this struggle, see John C. Swanson, The Remnants of the Habsburg Monarchy: The Shaping of Modern Austria and Hungary, 1918-1922 (New York: East European Monographs, 2001), 13–41. For more on the impact of World War II on shaping Austrian national identity after 1938, see Bruce F. Pauley, Hitler and the Forgotten Nazis: A History of Austrian National Socialism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981), 216–29. Evan Burr Bukey, Hitler’s Austria: Popular Sentiment in the Nazi Era, 1938-1945 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 155–234. This new government even went so far as to change the name of the former Austrian state to Ostmark, a vague connection to Austria’s medieval origins, and all public commemorations and celebrations honored Adolf Hitler, the Nazi regime, and the German nation. Germany’s defeat in the Second World War provided a second attempt for Austria to craft a unique national identity.

As scholars like Heidemarie Uhl have long noted, the desire to obscure the role of many Austrians in the Third Reich helped bolster the establishment of an Austrian national identity distinct from German nationalism. In Uhl’s words, the Second Austrian Republic was founded as “the antithesis to the Anschluß and to National Socialism.” Uhl, Zwischen Versöhnung und Verstörung, 81. A similar notion is made in Reiterer, Nation und Nationalbewusstsein in Österreich, 57. Anton Pelinka, “Taboos and Self-Deception: The Second Republic’s Reconstruction of History,” in: Austrian Historical Memory, 96–101. Embracing its Habsburg past, though detached from its imperial connotations and without any desire for a Habsburg restoration, helped in this process. After the Second World War, Austria’s political and cultural leaders began promoting the artists, musicians, and historical figures from the Habsburg past in order to craft an Austria identity separate and distinct from German national culture. Reiterer, Nation und Nationalbewusstsein in Österreich, 55. See also, Campbell, “The Shadow of the Habsburgs: Memory and National Identity in Austrian Politics and Education, 1918-1955,” 413–601. Peter Thaler, The Ambivalence of Identity: The Austrian Experience of Nation-Building in a Modern Society (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2001). This allowed for the legacy of imperial celebration to resurface in the years following the Second World War, and established a curious continuity between civic education in Habsburg Austria and that of Austria in the Second Republic. It appears that school events for Franz Joseph created a template for celebrating the republic and its leaders.

School celebrations held in 1950 to honor President Karl Renner mirrored those held half a century earlier for Emperor Franz Joseph. Renner had been a major figure in Austrian politics for decades. Before the First World War, he was a leader of the Social Democratic Party and he became Austria’s first chancellor when the Monarchy collapsed. In 1945, he established a provisional government and became the first president of the Second Republic. Both contemporaries and historians credit Renner for helping to ensure Austria’s relatively benign treatment by the Allies. These celebrations reflected the important role that Renner played in Austrian society.

The itinerary of the celebrations were almost identical to those held for Franz Joseph, even including some of the same patriotic songs and poems. Renner-Feier, November 27, 1950, WStLA, SSR, Materialien-Schulveranstaltungen (uncollected materials). As with celebrations for the emperor, those for Karl Renner included speeches about his life and his service to Austria. The descriptions of Renner and his life offer striking and obvious parallels with those of Franz Joseph. Speakers described Renner as a consummate statesman, dedicated to the peace and stability of Europe. They reflected on Renner’s tireless service to Austria and credited him with “the reestablishment of Austria” after World War II. They also praised Renner’s dedication to the arts and sciences. Ibid. Renner-Feier, Allg. Öffentliche Volks- und Hauptschule für Mädchen, 18. Bezirk, WStLA, SSR, Materialien-Schulveranstaltungen (uncollected materials). As with Franz Joseph, Karl Renner embodied the ideal of good governance. In many ways the only major difference between the celebrations was the fact that events to honor Renner ended with a signing of the Bundeshymne, the national anthem of the Austrian republic, rather than the Volkshymne.

On June 21, 1951, schools held an almost identical celebration for President Theodor Körner’s birthday. Theodor Körner was the second president of the Second Republic, serving from 1951 until he died in 1957. He was also the first post-war mayor of Vienna, serving from 1945-1950. All contents of this footnote is said in the text, this note should be deleted. Körner was the second president of the Second Republic, serving from 1951 until he died in 1957. He was also the first post-war mayor of Vienna, serving from 1945-1950, responsible for supervising the capital’s postwar recovery. Speeches honoring Körner utilized familiar themes: drawing attention to his military service during World War I and praising his efforts to rebuild Austria when he was elected mayor of Vienna in 1945. Speakers also reflected on Körner’s deep interest in improving the lives of the citizens of Vienna, evidenced by the schools, parks, and youth organizations established when he was mayor. Similar to those honoring Franz Joseph, speakers also discussed Körner’s personal life, especially his devotion to his home and his family. This dedication not only reflected his personal virtue, it also provided a foundation for his dedication to the people of Austria. Feier für Theodor Körners Angelobung, WStLA, SSR, Materialien-Schulveranstaltungen (uncollected materials).

The parallels between these speeches and those honoring Franz Joseph are obvious. Speakers wanted to emphasize the fact that Austria was a state led by pious, dedicated leaders who devoted their lives to the state and to the people of Austria. This emphasis speaks to the unconscious legacy of Habsburg commemoration. The notion that Habsburg leaders were stewards of the state and benevolent rulers was essential to Austrian civic education before the First World War, and these leadership tropes persisted in the Second Republic. As Austria emerged from the carnage of the Second World War, the biographies of its postwar presidents helped to create an image of a state led by similar stewards. Such celebrations reflected the assertion that Austria’s new republic had the good fortune to be led by just, honorable leaders, interested only in peace and in the development of the state, just like the Monarchy in the time of the Habsburgs. These celebrations formed a crucial bridge between Austria’s past and present as it transitioned to the Second Republic.

Ultimately, celebrations of Austria’s presidents tapered off in favor of explicitly republican national holidays after the signing of the state treaty of 1955. The state treaty ended Allied occupation of Austria and established an Austrian state neutral in the Cold War competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. As Austria developed a prosperous democratic society, schools celebrated Austria’s new role in the world. These efforts included commemorating the state treaty itself as well as Austrian Flag Day. Mementos and programs for these events can be found throughout the WStLA, SSR, Materialien-Schulveranstaltungen (uncollected materials). In spite of these changes, the initial commemoration of Austria’s postwar presidents speak to the power of administrative legacies, which can provide a template for notions of patriotism, civic education, and sense of self that can persist even after states collapse. It would be interesting to see if similar legacies exist in other parts of the former Habsburg Monarchy and to see how such ideas shaped these successor states as well.