Klemens Von Metternich - Historical Assessment

Historical Assessment

Particularly in the 19th century, Metternich was heavily criticised, decried as the man who prevented Austria and the rest of central Europe from "developing along 'normal' liberal and constitutional lines". If Metternich had not stood in the way of (in their view) progress, Austria might have reformed, dealt with the problems of nationality better, and the First World War may never have happened. Instead, Metternich chose to fight an overwhelmingly fruitless (and potentially counter-productive) war against the forces of liberalism and nationalism. Heavy censorship was just one of a range of repressive instruments of state available to him that also included a large spy network. He also opposed electoral reform, heavily criticising the British Reform Bill introduced in 1830. In short, he locked himself in an embittered battle against "the prevailing mood of his age".

On the other hand, Metternich's credentials as a diplomat and statesman were the focus of praise in the twentieth century from more favourable historians, particularly biographer Heinrich von Srbik. For example, particularly after the Second World War, historians were more likely to defend Metternich's policies as reasonable attempts to achieve his own goals i.e. the defence of the balance of power in Europe. More sympathetic historians highlight that Metternich correctly foresaw and worked to prevent Russian dominance in Europe, succeeding where his forebears would fail 130 years later. As argued by Srbik, Metternich himself pursued legality, cooperation and dialogue, and therefore helped ensure 30 years of peace, the "Age of Metternich". In the works of authors such as Peter Viereck and Ernst B. Haas Metternich also gains credit for many of his more liberal ideals, even if they did not come to much.

These views presuppose that Metternich had the ability to favourably shape Europe, but chose not to. More modern critiques, such as that included in the work of A. J. P. Taylor, have questioned just how much influence Metternich really had. Robin Okey, a critic of Metternich, noted that even in the realm of foreign affairs Metternich "had only his own persuasiveness to rely on", and this degraded over time. On this reading, his job was to create a "smokescreen" that hid Austria's true weakness. When it came to choosing a set of sound principles, wrote Taylor, "most men could do better while shaving". The result was that Metternich was no captivating diplomatic force: Taylor described him as "the most boring man in European history". Not only were his failures limited to foreign affairs, critics argue: at home he was equally powerless, failing to push through even his own proposals for administrative reform. By comparison, those who have attempted to rehabilitate Metternich describe him as "unquestionably master of diplomacy", someone who "perfected" and indeed shaped the nature of diplomacy in his era. In a similar vein, Alan Sked argues that Metternich's "smokescreen" may well have served a purpose in furthering a relatively coherent set of principles.