Replication Files: “Kärnten”=Austria, “Koroška”=Yugoslavia?

In 1920, the Carinthian plebiscite was organized to decide whether an ethnically and/or linguistically heterogeneous area in South-East Carinthia was to be part of the German-Austrian rump state or of the newly established Yugoslavian kingdom. Although ethnic or linguistic ``Slovenes'' constituted a majority of almost seventy percent within the referendum zone, more than fifty-nine percent of the voters opted to integrate into Austria. The allegedly victorious ``German'' side quickly turned the choice for Austria into a nationalist narrative fueled by claims of cultural superiority, fostered by the invention of an integrated, publicly funded memorial culture, vigorously defended against any objections or revisionism from ``outside'', and thus alienated and isolated from scientific discourse and discussion. <br> In this paper, we utilize an ecological inference model to show that nationalist authors on both sides severely overrated the causal impact and empirical significance of the alleged ethnic cleavage, underestimated the share of ``Slovenian'' and overestimated the share of ``German'' voters that chose to join the new Austrian republic. Instead of the reported 10,000, about 13,000 Slovenes, i.e. more than fifty percent of this linguistic group, had voted for Austria, while only 9,000 German-speaking voters, roughly three quarters, actually supported Austria. These findings strikingly illustrate the absurdity of historical accounts by both Austrian and Slovenian/ Yugoslavian authors who are fixated on some ethno-nationalist headcount as the dominant if not sole driver of historical fate. In 1920, the Carinthian plebiscite was organized to decide whether an ethnically and/or linguistically heterogeneous area in South-East Carinthia was to be part of the German-Austrian rump state or of the newly established Yugoslavian kingdom. Although ethnic or linguistic ``Slovenes'' constituted a majority of almost seventy percent within the referendum zone, more than fifty-nine percent of the voters opted to integrate into Austria. The allegedly victorious ``German'' side quickly turned the choice for Austria into a nationalist narrative fueled by claims of cultural superiority, fostered by the invention of an integrated, publicly funded memorial culture, vigorously defended against any objections or revisionism from ``outside'', and thus alienated and isolated from scientific discourse and discussion. <br> In this paper, we utilize an ecological inference model to show that nationalist authors on both sides severely overrated the causal impact and empirical significance of the alleged ethnic cleavage, underestimated the share of ``Slovenian'' and overestimated the share of ``German'' voters that chose to join the new Austrian republic. Instead of the reported 10,000, about 13,000 Slovenes, i.e. more than fifty percent of this linguistic group, had voted for Austria, while only 9,000 German-speaking voters, roughly three quarters, actually supported Austria. These findings strikingly illustrate the absurdity of historical accounts by both Austrian and Slovenian/ Yugoslavian authors who are fixated on some ethno-nationalist headcount as the dominant if not sole driver of historical fate.