Lives Journal 15

Jozhe Procházka




»I can describe the manner in which censuses were thus far conducted in Carinthia in no other way but as state fraud … If we look at these numbers, we are sure to see the negligence and fickleness with which censuses are conducted in Carinthia. The inevitability of blatant injustices perpetrated against the minority in Carinthia, that is Slovenes, will be made obvious to anyone, who is aware of the terrorism of the national-socialist party such as is habitual in Carinthia, for Carinthia is a site of German national terrorism.«

(From a speech by state assembly member Grafenauer from 15 May 1910)


1. Censuses

The institution in charge of censuses is of profound importance to the state, for it provides it with a realistic overview of its population and thereby a measurement of political, cultural, and economic activity. This is precisely what makes censuses so vitally important specifically for minorities. Namely, the state metes out pieces of the political, cultural, and economic pie among them based on the findings of censuses, i.e. relative to their number – their power. Clumsy, intolerant states with a ruling majority nation strive to have the smallest possible minorities and these are most quickly attained by way of censuses. This is why each census stirs members of a national minority, who, however, usually have very little recourse for resistance.

Maria Theresa instituted censuses by decree on 13 October 1753. Initial counts were to be carried out every three years, however this period did not work and was changed by law on 29 March 1869 to an interval of 10 years, which persists now.

The first official determination of the Austrian national situation was published in 1847 by the Viennese statistics bureau based on the 1846 census, which, however, only included Austrian and omitted Hungarian territories. Its count is crucial as it served as the basis of further censuses: the 1850 count, i.e. the first in 50 years to encompass all of Austria-Hungary, and the counts of 1857 and 1869, essentially merely revised and completed the former’s findings, though even the objectivity of their results in relation to actual numbers was officially deemed unsatisfactory (report compiled by Aust. Int. Min. »Erläuternde Denkschrift zu der Vorschrift über die Volkszählung« – Vienna 1857., p. 10.).

Certain statistics workers also deemed the 1864 census not aimed at ascertaining national areas, but rather at establishing the origin and ethnographic adherence of the population. Though even concerning these counts, statistician Fischer warned that due to widespread use of German in public life confounding the ethnographic factor with a linguistic one could result in sizeable errors.

In 1864, 95,544 Slovenes were counted in Carinthia, in 1851 there were 95,735, and in 1857 there were 92, 767.

Until 1880, the censuses were not run in the spirit of a ruthless national struggle. In the absolutist state, censuses were above all aimed at ascertaining the might of its taxation and military while serving the developing statistic science (ethnographic map, the started work »Etnographie der österreichischen Monarchie«, 1857). Slavs did not a become a danger to the Germans until ndependence, or better isolation, of Austria, which, until 1866, was merely Germany’s appendage. Suddenly, Germans found themselves in the minority of nine- againt sixteen million. The Viennese government came to their aid by arbitrarily changing the grounds for assigning nationality; this was legal because the act on censuses leaves the decisions on defining nationality up to political authorities. The level of »impartiallity« with which the basis was determined is evident from the rows in the outline. [not showed here – editor's note]


2. The Basis for Determining Nationality

The weak spot of any census is the department for the nationality of the population becuase the question of defining nationality is very unclear and controversial. Opinions on the method greatly differ; the extremes are represented by two positions, one is in favour of the individuals’ freedom to choose and the other determines nationality based on objective criteria. There is, as yet, no internationally binding provision.

The root causes of this contradiction lay in the different interpretations of the concept of nation. The central and eastern parts of Europe live entirely in the belief in innate nationality, a view rooted in the German philosophy of Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, and Herder. According to this theory, a nation with its language, history, sense of nationality, and other objective factors separating it from other nations, is a self-contained organic unit with an entirely separate life. This tribal view is consistently implemented to the extreme in Germany with its race theory according to which representatives of an individual nations are even related by blood. Influenced by this German philosophy, particularly Herder, the tribal nature of nationality prevailed with Slavs, which made its opposite view, namely of the nation as a political unit, entirely foreign to us; we aren’t even aware that this view is widespread across the rest of Europe, in England, France, Italy, etc., as well as in America and elsewhere. This theory is founded on the great principles of the French Revolution, which tore the individual out of the clutches of subordination to the state. The principal difference between the two vies lie in the attitude towards individuals’ free will. The essential ingredient of a nation’s political unit is the state as its external form and product of free will, being that according to it, there is no true nation without a state. It follows that the said unit must allow individuals to freely choose either entrance or departure. On the other hand, a tribal nation incorporates in its naturally given organism everyone according to their birth no matter their accession or resistance. Accordingly, nationality is predestined.

The core of the differences in defining the bases for determining nationality lay in the signalled underlying ideological and political-historical causes. The fact that an, at least essentially, predetermined view corresponds with a certain stance postulates a certain logical demand and a certain functional correlation. Let us see how Austrian censuses reflect this.

Censuses before 1910 based their determination of nationality on the colloquial language. Old Austria, certainly a proponent of the tribe theory and thereby adhering to objective criteria, chose colloquial language as a marker of nationality. The nationality of individuals can by no means be based on this because colloquial language does not always coincide with an individual’s mother tongue let alone their nationality. Such a basis could perhaps be adopted in a territory of a uniform nationality but is not applicable in nationally mixed territories, and less still in Carinthia where both languages, Slovenian and German were recognised as equal. Of course, Slovene was only equal on paper as evidenced by several years of recurring protests. German ruled public life, school, court, official bureaus, railway, everything; and due to such a wide spread of colloquial German, results derived on such a basis cannot yield numbers corresponding with the actual situation.

I must also make note of a fact which clearly illuminates what lay behind this »colloquial language«. In the national assembly debate of 1910, the German representatives maintained that colloquial language was not the same as mother tongue and thereby does not signal a distinct nationality. The same point was argued in the newspapers; the »Freie Stimmen« stated, »… the act on the public census directly determines that colloquial language and not mother tongue must be recorded in counting forms …« This makes it seem as though this section was not intended to ascertain the state of nationality, but merely statistically appraise the extent to which German was used. And yet they determined nationality according to the findings on this colloquial language.

On 15 may 1910, the national assembly passed a resolution proposed by representative Grafenauer:

»In the next census, the government is requested to also determine nationality in addition to the colloquial language by engaging trustworthy men of the affected nationality and do everything necessary to prevent any undue influence during the census, particularly concerning national minorities.«

The basis of the 1923 census corresponded to the later post-World War tendencies evident in the principle of the self-determination of nations. They aimed to determine nationality as directly as possible rather than by way of linguistic identity or colloquial language. And some countries even adhered to this.

The basis was somewhat broader:

a) linguistic identity (auth. def.: »Linguistic identity is determined according to the language which an individual finds easiest to speak and in which they usually think.«)

b) knowledge of German,

c) national identity,

d) tribe (for Jewish people).

This is the only census based on consistently observing the Austrian tribal position while simultaneously providing sufficient practical opportunity to adapt the result of the census to suit the purposes of the government. What is hardest about the whole thing is that in a country whose majority or ruling nation oppresses the other nations, we can never depend on the results being accurate and impartial. And if we overlook this as well as the fact that the rest of the federal nationality policies towards Slovenes in Carinthia is unwaveringly the same under all regimes as it was in the pre-war monarchy, we cannot be surprised by the counted number of Slovenes, particularly considering the situation they found themselves in after the unfavourable result of the plebiscite. This situation is very well illustrated by the following quote from the book »Die Nationalitäten in den Staaten Europas« p. 305:

»Die Nationalitätenerhebung in Kärnten ist vor allem in der denkbar schlechtesten politischen Atmosphäre durchgeführt worden. Seit dem Plebiscit, das über die Zugehörigkeit Südkärntens zu Österreich oder zu Jugoslawien zu scheiden hatte, waren kaum drei Jahre verflossen. Die nationalen Leidenschaften im Lande waren damals noch so erregt, daß ein offenes Bekenntnis zur slowenischen Sprachgemeinschaft fast als Landesverrat angesehen wurde. Daß in solchen Vethältnissen viele Angehörige der im Plebiscit unterlegenen Minderheit es für ratsam hielten, sich zur slowenischen Sprachzugehörigkeit nicht zu bekennen, ist verständlich.«

»The nationality survey in Carinthia was carried out in the worst possible political atmosphere. Hardly three years had elapsed since the plebiscite that had to decide whether South Carinthia was a part of Austria or Yugoslavia. At the time, national passions in the country were still so agitated that an open commitment to the Slovene language community was viewed almost as treason. It is understandable that in such circumstances many members of the minority, who were subjected to the plebiscite, considered it advisable not to profess a Slovene language.«

The »linguistic identity« basis (auth. def.: »Die sprachliche Zugehörigkeit wird durch die Sprache bestimmt, deren Kulturkreis der Befragte sich zugehörig fühlt«) of the 1934 census represents a change of the federal government’s former position to an entirely subjective one in line with the political conceptions of nationality. The government justifies its position in its notes to the Carinthian Slovenes’ appeal to the League of Nations as follows:

»1.) New principles of determining the language of the population applied in the same way to all Austrian citizens. For this reason alone, it is cannot be said that the position of the minority of Austrian citizenship would be worse than the majority’s.

2.) For the 1934 census, the Austrian federal government purposefully chose a formula that subjects the determination of language to the free choice of the affected, this choice is irreplaceable by any official decree and is the only one that may be taken into account.

One could ask whether this procedure is better than the one based on objective criteria or vice versa. At any rate, the new method adopted by the federal government entirely corresponds with modern trends in the protection of minorities such as were, for example, expressed at national minorities’ congresses held at European countries. And, according to the position of the federal government, determining language according to individuals’ own statements cannot be said to be contrary to the Treaty of Saint Germain-Laye, which was aimed at protecting persons belonging to minorities and not minorities as language, tribal, or religious units

As is evident from the basis itself as well as from the above notes, the Austrian federal government did not consistently represent the position of free individual declaration of nationality, but again took its favoured roundabout way of linguistic identity and simply counted those persons, who declared themselves to be of German linguistic identity as German nationals (to be clear: not political Austrian nationals). This was obviously an attempt to find a formula that would cast Austria in a favourable light in front of the world while not actually going against and impeding its denationalisation policies.

There are many cases proving that the Austrian government did not change its stripes in this respect. When, e.g., the university regulation was being prepared in Vienna in 1932, the German Austrian students demanded that organisations aimed at national-culturally educating their members must be established on the basis of the national principle. As to the question of whether nationality was to be determined based on free individual choice, the relevant authorities and the students took the position that free profession was not valid, but that individuals’ nationality is only determined by their descent and mother tongue. Furthermore, they emphasised that nationality was derived from birth and aught not be subject to political agitation. In his address to the academics, Minister Czermak(!) exclaimed: »By what else am I to know a German if not by his birth and the language he speaks!« »Koroshki Slovenec« ascertains (21 Jan 1932): »However, we must by all means here draw attention to the fact that our neighbours (Germans) are also capable of thinking correctly, when their own demands are in question.«


3. Object of Statistics

Independently of all ideological friction between the conceptions of nation and of the nationality of individuals, statistical science per se poses as its primary requirement that statisticians must first precisely define the subject they intend to count. The uniformity of execution and credibility of results demand that an objective criterion be established for the census organizers as well as for the people who take part in it, who must therefore naturally know what the matter is concerning, i.e. they must know the counted object and its conceptual field. For most objects this is easy as they are simple and clear enough, but there are those objects, whose divergent understanding and substance matter demand that the statistician adopt an exact view in their definition of the object.

One of the most problematic statistical objects of this kind is nationality of a certain territory’s residents. I have already quickly outlined why. This is precisely why a statistician must take even greater care to provide a definition that will leave no space for doubt or conjecture.

If we evaluate Austrian censuses from this point of view, we cannot but establish that they fall far short in this respect. Not one of them defines nationality, most even fail to mention it; Austrian authorities preferred to determine it indirectly. And so, we have a few determinations of the colloquial language and linguistic identity which cannot suffice considering the complexity of these issues. The absence of an official definition today lends great opportunity for autocratic behaviour on the part of the counting bodies and political and economic authorities; in general, this affords greater influence to the individuals’ social environment, which so greatly figures in their decision. This very social environment is of such fatal significance to our Carinthian Slovenes that it cannot be overlooked in evaluating their situation if we are to arrive at a more factual conclusion.

The lack of official definition was particularly evident in the last census, when, according to the federal government itself, a new principle was introduced – tough for determining the population’s linguistic identity, by extension indirectly also – for determining national identity. It was allegedly established on the wide democratic basis of freely choosing between one linguistic identity or the other. If a previously regular position is changed, a statistician must by all means, if not justify the change, at the very least declare it to the affected population and explain the new position. All this was lacking in this census, and it is reasonable to assume that the federal government only changed its position in theory while practice remained as it was.

It is also true that the given political situation in Austria – and elsewhere – does not allow for objective results. This would only be possible if censuses were conducted, for example, purely for ideal scientific reasons or when individuals were also personally interested, rather than invested mainly according to deciding interests of various groups, be they political or national. Their decision is impacted by the awareness that their adherence to an individual nation has certain consequences and it is natural that the majority will want to avoid undesirable consequences, all the more so because the other side sometimes even lends them benefits.


4. Actual Execution

Thus far, we somewhat analysed censuses in terms of their organisers and have thereby already determined that they don’t fully correspond to the requirements of statistics; this goes both for the censuses of the pre-war monarchy and of the post-war republic. Apart from by the theoretical part, the evaluation of results is also largely impacted by the mode of their actual execution, for, if even the simplest requirement for impartiality and strict justness remains unfulfilled, we are also unable to trust the results arrived by through seemingly objective standards and even less those with such pliable and all-fitting standards.

However, it is fact that aside from the thus far established faults, Austrian censuses suffer from another – the worst of them – weakening the credibility of censuses, i.e. that counting bodies were not appointed impartially and that territorial authorities acted improperly with agreement and support of the state; we can state this due to the Austrian authorities’ abstention in all issues pertaining to Slovenes in Carinthia.

Anyone, who as much as reviews the final tallies of the censuses and compares them can come to this conclusion. Over the course of 50 years, the number of Slovenian inhabitants declined from 85,154 to 24,857, i.e. by 70% with a general increase of 73,038, thereby the increase of German inhabitants would have to amount to a staggering 133,335, i.e. 41.6%. The most sizeable drop occurred between 1910 and 1923, when, according to official statistics, the number of Slovenes dropped by 29,377, and, relative to the Slovenian 1910 census, almost by 80,000.

It is a fact that the Slovenian population, which is mostly rural, multiplies faster than the German population, being that their 10% increase placed Slovenes first in old Austria. According to this, we would rightly expect in any normal situation that the number of Slovenes in Carinthia would show at least a proportionate increase. But we must admit that the number of Slovenes in Carinthia is gradually but surely decreasing with the linguistic line moving ever further southward. The causes of this must be sought in historic development that from early on saw Slovenes pushed into a passive defensive position against the waves of Germanisation; they must also and predominately be sought in Slovene-averse German Austrian governments thoroughly carrying out their Germanic mission.1 Yet the decrease cannot actually be as substantial as statistics show, which indicates that official censuses do not show the true situation and can, with all this considered, therefore not be trusted or used to draw conclusions. The dip recorded in the final census can also not be ascribed to the adoption of the new formula of »free« choice, since a similar course has already previously occurred in practice.

Further telling proof supporting these statements can be derived from the details of the censuses, which cast even more light on this fact.

In 1880 »Mir« (26 Sep 1883) printed the following estimation of the census:

»During the last census, they counted 348,000 inhabitants in Carinthia. According to nationality, 246,000 Germans were counted and only 101,000 Slovenes.2 These numbers are, however, not reliable, being that in Celovec, Beljak, and other towns as well as in the Celovec area and other places many people, who also spoke German were listed under the heading “Umgangssprache deutsch” though the colloquial language of these people is not the same as their mother tongue. In this way, they only counted 600 Slovenes in Celovec even though there are at least ten times as many there, i.e. 6000. Therefore, we will be much closer to the truth, if we estimate the number of Carinthian Slovenes at 120,000.«

In this way they counted approximately 17,000 Slovenes and 13,000 Germans in the Celovec area.

»How they came up with these “Germans”, is evident from the following: St. Jur is a Slovenian village and also holds sermons in Slovenian yet they counted 117 Germans there and only 3 Slovenes.«

They counted the same way in St Jakob by the road, in Trdnja vas, Kriva vas, St Rupert by Celovec, and Vetrinje, etc.

»If they did this in the south, then it is no wonder they saw no Slovenes in the northers municipalities near St Vid … Based on the thus acquired numbers, a cry goes out into the world: “Slovene is dying out, there are only 10,000 Carinthian Slovenes left!” But in the name of truth, it must be said that this count was not reliable.« (»Mir«, 25 Oct 1884)

According to the summary of the Gurk Bishoprick survey there are around 127,000 Slovenes there.

At the state assembly in Vienna, on 25 May 1910, the late state representative Grafenauer presented a short overview of the way censuses were conducted from 1880 to 1910. The government and the German National Party3 threw themselves into the Celovec area and the strip of territory across Zhihpolje due south, towards the territorial boundary at Ljubelj, attempting to tear the Slovenian territory in two parts. The year 1900 is relevant »because this was when German national propaganda took off. Previously, commissioners were at least somewhat just in their count. From 1900 onwards, they knew that it wouldn’t really do anymore to eat away at Slovenes so slowly, and so – to speed things along – they recorded anyone who stated they could speak German, e.g. me, as a German.«

He noted the changes in population, for example in the municipalities of Zhrelec, Trdnja vas, Hodishe, Kotmara vas, Kriva vrba, Dhovshe, Bilchovs, Zhihpolje, Gospa Sveta, Shmartin pri Celovcu. With rural population, such changes with the same general number are not possible naturally.4

»Whole villages, yes whole municipalities, simply turn German between two censuses, that it is in the short period of ten years; first they are Germanized on paper and then build political repercussions on that … That which has been Germanized on paper is then called “German territory” and is touted as such everywhere.«

There are a number of examples that precisely demonstrate the method of counting, for example, when a family declared »Slovenian-German« as their colloquial language, the census commission’s verdict was: »Streichen sie slovenisch durch« [»Cross Slovene out«] (Celovec, 1910) – or pressured officials »sie müssen sich auch die eventuellen Folgen als Beamter vor Augen halten, wenn sie darauf bestehen, dass slovenisch als Umgangssprache bleibt.« [»You must also bear in mind possible consequences to you as officials, if you insist on Slovenian as a colloquial language«](Celovec 1910) – etc.

The twelfth annual general assembly of the »Catholic political and economic society for Slovenes in Carinthia« passed a resolution at the 1910 census.

»([T]he general council) hereby ascertains that, during the last census in Carinthia, downright scandalous things occurred to the detriment of the Slovenian population, both overall and particularly in Celovec, Beljak, and Schmohor; in many places the count was executed in an entirely unconstitutional manner, germanising on paper not only individual persons and families but whole settlements, large villages, and municipalities, thus erasing thousands of Slovene-speaking inhabitants. The census was falsified to such a great extent that it doesn’t even slightly resemble the actual situation. For this reason, the general assembly most ardently objects against any and all consideration of this falsification on the part of any public authority for any intention; it states that it can never and under no circumstances ratify this census.« (»Mir«, 7 Dec 1912)

We have already touched upon the conditions under which the 1923 census was carried out; let us also examine a few details. The »Koroški Slovenec« paper took particular issue with census commissaries, who »ought to be non-partisan individuals«, but who were in fact »almost all of them renegades, liars, so they could more easily cheat you«.

»As is evident, and as we knew in advance, authorities have absolutely no regard for the federal government’s laws and decrees, instead they work to suit the will of the Heimatdienst. The decree of the Ministry of the Interior from 7 July 1921 explicitly states that census commissionaires are selected by the municipality. District captain Rainer in Celovec is of a different mind. He allows census commissionaires in municipalities with German majorities but not in municipalities which the Heimatsdienst deems unreliable.«5 (»Koroshki Slovenec«, no. 12-13, 1923.)

»How ‘objectively’ these census commissionaires act, is best attested by numerous reports we are receiving daily. So, for example, the census commissionaire in Dzholica declared to a Slovenian party that they could only record themselves as German, Serbian, or Croatian, because there are no more Slovenes. Elsewhere, people are asked if they were for Austria or for Yugoslavia …« and the like.

The Graz-based »Arbeiterwille« assessed the census as follows: »Die Behauptung, daß es in Kärnten nur 37.000 Slovenen gibt, ist ein Unsinn. Wahrscheinlich wurden nur jene Slovenen gezählt, die der slovenichen kath. Partei angehören.« [»The claim that there are only 37,000 Slovenes in Carinthia is nonsense. Probably, only Slovenes belonging to the Slovenian Cath. party were counted.«] (5 Apr 1925.)

Carinthian Slovenes appealed to the League of nations concerning the 1934 census, which tallied a further 27% less Slovenes than ten years earlier, about the abuse by counting bodies in the following municipalities: Medgorje, Bela, Ledenice, Ruda, Zhitara vas, Smerche, Kostanje, Dobrla vas, Kotmara vas, Blache, Pliberk, Libuche, Bilchoves, Borovlje, Grabshtajn, Bistrica na Zili, Straja vas, Djekshe, Globasnica. The Austrian federal government denied the complaint’s validity, stating that an inquiry in these municipalities showed that the listed abuses did not take place; it does however concede that census registrars in Kostanje and Kotmara vas did in fact act as the petition reports, adding:

»Apparently an error has been committed in the choice of registrars. However, this is the only proven example where misconduct of a graver nature occurred, which generally has no impact on the final result of the count … we could summarise them (the results) as follows: in certain instances, irregularities were determined, which are unavoidable in operations in this area and due to the fact that unproven means had to be resorted to; in general, the census in the aforementioned municipalities was executed objectively and meticulously. – In any case, the statistical data, unlike the petition states, confirms a well-executed census. The 1923 census in Carinthian municipalities listed in the petition counted 27,104 residents of which 15,891, i.e. 59%, have German linguistic identity, and 11,074, i.e. 40.9%, are Slovene; the 1934 census, meanwhile, counts 30,374 inhabitants of which 21,163, i.e. 69,7%, declared themselves as belonging to the German language cultural environment, and 9,100, i.e. 30%, Slovene. The regression of Slovenes is by no means considerable and can be explained as resulting fromt the new formula, which, as stated above, subjected the recording in the field “language” solely to the free choice of the affected and corresponds entirely with the just demands of persons belonging to the minority.«

This respons of the federal government is quite a telling indication of the method of execution and therewith its stance on Carinthian Slovenes in general. This statement requires no other amendment than a look at the change in population in the aforementioned municipalities where most cases show the opposite ratio of Slovenes and Germans than that in 1880. If we then compare the results of the 1932 municipal elections with the results of the final census, our view gets even clearer. To list just a few examples: in the municipality of Otok they counted 138 Slovenes, while the Slovenian Party got 66 votes, in Hodishe the ratio6 is 469 against 225, Zhrelec 67 (39), Kotmara vas 289 (126), St Tomazh 71 (60), Dobrla vas 563 (333), Galicija 199 (133), Shkocijan 225 (231), etc.

The national policy of German Austrian Governments strives to reduce the number of Slovenes in Carinthia to as few as possible, or in such a way as to be able to say at the earliest possible time »There are no more Carinthian Slovenes, Carinthia is a fully German territory.« This policy is attested by the censuses, by the structure of the Carinthian school system, and in the life of all Slovenes in Austria. It is not redundant, in conclusion, to take a look at how many Slovenes there actually are in Carinthia, though the exact number will be very difficult to determine until the matter of affiliation of non-conscious Slovenes is settled. The map of the parishes of the Bishoprick of Gurk from 1925 by Dr Wutte and Steit (published by the Bishopric of Gurk), marks at least 81 parishes as Slovenian, 16 as Slovenian-German, and 11 as German-Slovenian, that make 108 parishes with Slovene residents. Going by this map and by the chronicle from the Bishopric of Gurk alone, we can estimate the number of Slovenes at about 100,000.7


Viri in literature / Sources and Literature

Bundesamt für Statistik: Die Ergebnisse der österreichischen Volkszählung vom 22. März 1934. - Karnten. Wien 1935.

K. k. Statistische Zentra1-Kommission: Statistische Monatsschrift.

Bundesamt für Statistik: Statistische Nachrichten, Num. 3., 27. 3. 1935.

Gemeindelexikon der im Reichsrate vertretenen Königreiche und Länder-Kärnten. Wien 1905.

Dr. E. Ammende: Die Nationalitäten in den Staaten Europas. Wien 1931.

A. Beg: Narodni kataster Koroshke, Ljubljana 1910.

Carantanus: Jugoslavija in njene meje – I. Koroshka, Ljubljana 1919.

Dr. V. Rozhich: Boj za Koroshko, Ljubljana 1925.

Slovenicus: Koliko je Slovencev na Koroshkem? Ljubljana 1926.

Fr. Erjavec: Slovenci, Ljubljana 1923.

Em. Lilek: Anklagen gegen die barbarischen Verfolgungen der Slovenen in Kärnten, Celje 1935.

Em. Rádl: Národnost jako vìdecký problém. Praha 1929.


Slovenec (Celovec), Mir, Koroshki Slovenec

in krajshi chlanki, n. pr.:

Dr. Kramberger: Nekaj opazk k poslednjemu ljudskemu shtetju na Koroshkem. Koledar CMD 1936 in drugi.



1 Early on, in his »Reform«, Dr Suzelka wrote an interesting estimation concerning the German National party:

»Sie betrachten Österreich als ihre Domäne und die Völker Österreichs als ihre Leibeigenen und Nutzthiere. Aber das Mass ist voll! In der demnächstigen Periode unserer Geschichte kann für diese Partei kein hervorragender Platz mehr sein, oder es müsste Österreich aus der Geschichte verschwinden.« [»They regard Austria as their domain and the people of Austria as their serfs and livestock. But enough of that! In the coming period of our history, this party can no longer be given primacy, or else Austria should disappear from history.«] According to Slovenec (the Celovec issue) 9. Feb 1867.

2 These numbers also include the territory that was included in Yugoslavia and Italy after the war.

3 »Mir«, 8 March 1912. – »… that the census was conducted by the German Volksrat under the government’s banner.«

4 In 1880, they counted 5 Germans and 29 Slovenes in the village Potok near Celovec. 10 years later it was 47 Germans and 0 Slovenes. In the nearby settlement of Gora they counted 0 Germans and 39 Slovenes in 1880, in 1890 they again only recorded Slovenes (41), while in 1900 they counted 27 Germans and 5 Slovenes. Then there is the example of Pliberk, where 171 Slovenes were recorded in 1880, while the [Slovenian-language] Mohorjeva druzhba publishing house [Hermagoras Society] alone hade 153 member-subscribers.

5 In this fashion, for example, municipal chief offices in Sele, Slov. Plajberk, and at Bistrica v Rozhu received the following ordinance from the district captain:

The district administration cannot approve this process and instructs the community representatives to get in touch with the school management immediately and to make use of teaching staff as counting commissioners; thus, many of the counting commissioners proposed by the community are to be eliminated as there are teachers available. D. Admin. is convinced that without including the teaching staff, the census in the local community does not offer the necessary security for which it is responsible. The teaching staff will take over the work of counting commissioners free of charge. The execution is to be reported immediately. District Captain Rainer m. p.«]

6 The first number is the result of the census, the other Slovenian votes.

7 This is extensively proven in the leaflet: Koliko je Slovencev na Koroshkem? [How Many Slovenes Are There in Carinthia?].


(first published in the journal Slovanski svet - tezhnje neodvisne mladine; Ljubljana, year I., Oct. 1935 / 1, Nov. 1935 / 2, Dec. –Jan. 1935-1936 / 3-4.)


JOZHE PROCHÁZKA – furthe detailed information is not available, the only known thing is that he was editor in chief of the Slovanski svet journal, and otherwise a law student in Ljubljana, like his co-editors. In the leaflet by Stanko Trchek: 70 let telesne kulture v Trnovem [70 Years of Sports Culture in Trnovo] (Lj. 1978) a Jozhe Procházka jr. is mentioned among the Sokol members who gave their life for the Liberation Front. (Jozhe Procházka senior was also a member; the SBL only mentions Czech composer Jozhef Procháska, who worked in Ljubljana before World War I). The above treatise presents a clear outline of the ethnic problem of Carinthia and key point of Slovenians practically »disappearing« from Carinthia after World War I, even though, being a largely rural population, their increase was the greatest in Austria. (Editor I. A.’s note.)



Modern day German Versions of Slovenian Place Names Above


Modern-Day German





Bilchoves = Bilchovs


Bistrica na Zili

Feistritz and der Gail

Bistrica v Rozhu

Feistritz im Rosental








Lendorf, in Klagenfurt



Dobrla vas








Gospa Sveta

Maria Saal







Kotmara vas


Kriva vas = Kriva vrba




Ledenice = Ledince






Medgorje [Mieger]


Plajberg - Pliberk









Zell Pfarre


Sankt Kanzian


Sankt Martin



Slovenji Plajberk

Windisch Bleiberg

St Jakob = Shentjakob

Sankt Jakob

St Jur = Shentjur

Sankt Georgen

St Rupert = Shentrupert

Sankt Ruprecht

St Tomazh = Shenttomazh

Sankt Thomas

Straja vas


Trdnja vas


Vetrinje = Vetrinj



Maria Rain

Zhitara vas






Slovenian (gajica)

Slovenian (bohorichica)