The Peace Palace Library, Den Haag, June 24th 2014, Commemoration Lectures to Celebrate the Life, Work and Legacy of Bertha von Suttner (1843 – 1914).

This year, the Peace Palace Library marked the centenary of the death of Austrian author and Nobel Peace Prize winner Bertha von Suttner. She passed away merely three weeks before the outbreak of World War I. In June of this year, Austrian professor Christa Hämmerle travelled from Vienna to The Hague, to give a special lecture on Bertha von Suttner’s views with regards to the events leading up to the First World War and focused on the participation, position and the role of women throughout the remaining years of the War.

Commemoration Lecture by Professor Christa Hämmerle, University of Vienna,

Dear colleagues, guests, friends of Bertha von Suttner and peace history,

Let me first express my gratitude that I got the chance to give a lecture here at this famous place, which is so closely connected to Bertha von Suttner. As you all know, this remarkable woman was not only the founder of the Austro-Hungarian peace movement in 1891 [1]  and – together with Alfred Hermann Fried – of the “German Peace Society” . [2]  She was also deeply engaged in international activities for lasting peace, be it in Europe or North America . [3]  However, this all could not prevent what happened in the Summer of 1914. One might say, that Bertha von Suttner was lucky that she died shortly before the outbreak of World War I – a war that she in many ways had foreseen and fought against for decades. As an acknowledged, but at the same time controversial and denounced leader of the peace movement, Bertha von Suttner on the one hand cooperated with feminists of her time who like her, shared a pacifist orientation. Feminists such as Grete Moscheles from Great Britain or Aletta Jacobs from the Netherlands who after much debate finally convinced her of the importance of female suffrage. Bertha von Suttner also cooperated with Marianne Hainisch in Austria, one of the most important leaders of the bourgeois women´s movement, who in 1902 founded the “National Council of Women” [“Bund Österreichischer Frauenvereine”] and invited Bertha von Suttner to head the peace section of this organization. Another close companion was Auguste Fickert, who – until her death in 1910 – led a more radical, small association of feminists called the “General Austrian Women´s Association” [Allgemeiner Österreichischer Frauenverein]. [4]

On the other hand, Bertha von Suttner also had bitter experiences with, and warned against the increasing patriotism and nationalism of many women – for example – in the Austro-Hungarian women´s movement. In her view, men and women could equally be blind against the menace of such attitudes and growing militarism. She did not belief that women – because of their ‘female nature’ and motherhood – were more peaceful than men, or even principally peaceable, as the dominant vision of the ‘natural pacifism’ of women suggested. [5]  She therefore also remained critical towards influential representatives of the women´s peace movement who promoted such arguments. In 1895 for example, Bertha von Suttner wrote in an article published in the pacifistic journal “Die Waffen nieder” [“Lay Down the Arms”]: “As far as my personal experience has shown, there is no difference between humans of the male and female sex related to their position on the question of peace. Women and men alike can show enthusiasm for war deeds and war heroes; women can be as enthusiastic as men for the peace [...]” [6]

In April 1913, during the First Balkan War, when fanatic nationalism and related enemy stereotypes or anti-Slavism gained strength all over Europe, Bertha von Suttner, a meanwhile well-known woman who had received the Nobel Peace Price in 1905 and who had travelled as a lecturer twice across the USA, was invited by Marianne Hainisch to Graz in Styria to give a speech on the question of peace. This caused a severe conflict between the representatives of the local bourgeois women´s movement and the peace movement represented by Bertha von Suttner even before the event, scheduled to be held in the military casino,  – took place. The former opposed or at least wanted to control what Bertha von Suttner would say, as they feared her to be too internationally orientated. This ultimately led to her disinvitation. [7] Looking back on events like this, and considering the dangerous political atmosphere of early 1914, Bertha von Suttner shortly before her death wrote a message of greetings to the women, which she enclosed with a letter to Marianne Hainisch in May 1914. She felt too tired and too disillusioned to attend the extraordinary general meeting of the “National Council of Women” organized in Vienna at the instance of a visit of representatives of the “International Congress of Women” [“Frauenweltbund”] from May 25th to May 27th 1914. [8]

I quote from her last message to the women, which also shows that Bertha von Suttner was against an equation of the peace movement and the women´s movement, as she feared – and indeed often experienced – that this would trigger the fact that her concerns as well as those of the peace movements were defined as mere effeminate illusions, and as such not be taken seriously. She wrote in her last manifest to women: “Welcome and hail, honoured female combatants. Since you will have to prove yourselves as such: it will not be easy for you to stand up for your pacifistic ideals. Even amongst women, you might encounter many opponents. It is wrong to suggest – as some in fact do – that the peace movement is an effeminate sentimentality, that all women are averse to war by nature. No, only the progressive women, only those who educated themselves in social thinking, are the ones who have the power to free themselves from the rule of thousand year old institutions.” [9]

With this in mind, let us turn to the topic of women in World War I now, and look at what happened at that time with the women´s movements. Was Bertha von Suttner right when she feared women´s patriotism as well, or did women primarily oppose or criticize the war, the military, the reign of militarism, nationalism, and hostility? Who among the women or the women´s associations did so, and who did not, and why? How did women explain their consent to start a war, which after more than 4 years ended in an absolute catastrophe? Are they jointly responsible for that? These are questions we have to keep in mind when we are looking back at the history of female war engagement, as I will do now. At the end of my talk, I will come back to peace engagement of women, and Bertha von Suttner´s legacy.

I will answer these questions I posed by having a closer look at the case of the women´s movement and female war support in former Austria. The example seems to be quite representative for other European contexts as well, although there were also many differences in terms of specific war-related activities and perspectives of women in the belligerent countries. But we can summarize that, apart from only a few and marginalized women) who continued to pursue their earlier pacifist ideals and internationalism individually or in groups, most factions of the women´s movements in all warring countries postponed or shut down their international networking when World War I broke out. They now propagated national ‘sisterhood’ and the unity of their respective nation in the form of a “Burgfrieden” (political truce), and called for giving up any ‘egoistic’ interests – such as their former fight for more rights. Even Lady Aberdeen, the president of the International Council of Women (IWC) which was founded in 1888 as the first women´s organization to work across national boundaries for the common cause of advocating social rights for women and already comprised 23 national members in 1914, expressed her patriotic attitude as follows – I quote: “All of us are glad that women all over the world have responded to the call of duty and sacrifice in such a wonderful manner […] and that it is the best guide to us if women of each nation do what they believe to be their duty as citizens of the respective country.” [10]

Women who now allegedly had to fulfill their prior duties only in a national context and women who by doing so should prove to be fit for citizenship. Let us look now to how this was formulated and implemented in former Austria. Here, as in other countries, in the Summer of 1914, there undoubtedly existed a really broad consent (if not to say an “enthusiasm for war” ) [11] – not least among many women, whose (self-) mobiliziation I will describe in what follows. [12]   Their large-scale commitment at the very start of the war was (jointly) organized and supported by numerous women’s associations. In particular, many sections of the bourgeois, catholic and proletarian women’s movement, which were formed over the previous decades, took part in the rapidly established “Voluntary War Relief Work” [“Freiwillige Kriegsfürsorge]”. Only a small group of members of the already mentioned, more radical “General Austrian Women’s Association” represented an exception in this respect, as they opposed the war from the outset and subsequently participated in the European Women’s Peace Congress here in Den Haag in 1915. These were, for example, Olga Misar and Leopoldine Kulka. All in all (as we do not know for sure), between 4 and 7 Austrian activists of the “General Austrian Women´s Association” visited the congress in Den Haag. And it was this association where an own peace group was founded in 1917.

Image removed.The absolute majority of the other women’s associations joined forces in the summer of 1914 to form the national “Women’s Aid Action in War” [“Frauenhilfsaktion im Kriege”]. First appeals “To Austria’s Women” launched throughout the country, which were supposed to mobilize them to provide devotional support for the coming war, even appeared one day before the declaration of war to Serbia, on 27th July 1914, and sounded similar to the one of Marianne Hainisch, the already mentioned, well-known leader of the “National Council of Women”. I quote: “Deplorable events have forced war on Austria. We witness that our sons, husbands and fathers have to go to war and that our fatherland is exposed to all the horrors, which the bloody atonement brings along. We are moved by the indescribable suffering, as we are sharing the fate of our beloved ones and fear for those far away every day and every hour. But should we passively endure and suffer? This does not befit to the mother and wife, and not to the female citizen; instead, it is ours that we try to relieve the distress, and work for the relief of our soldiers, to support the war effort. It is up to the women now to offer their working capacity, their organizational skills, their money, as much as they can, for the endangered fatherland.” [13]

Such appeals, which similarly were launched by associations such as the “Imperial Association of Austrian Housewives” [“Reichsorganisation der Hausfrauen Österreichs]”, really gathered thousands and thousands of women in most cities, towns or regions of the Double Monarchy. [14] The field of activities specified by the thus organized “Women’s Aid Action in War” was immense and by far exceeded the traditional forms of private women’s charity efforts or welfare work as already practiced in the 19th century. It stretched from the immediate establishment of a “refreshment services” [“Labedienst”] for passing troops at stations and the care of the wounded, to the manufacture, packaging, and sending of diverse “charitable gifts” [“Liebesgaben”] for the soldiers at the fronts, and from the construction of sewing and knitting stations or other working possibilities for the many women who had become unemployed as a result of the war, various collections of material goods and money, the provision of wartime cooking courses, to taking care of poor, pregnant women, mothers, children and babies as well as work in the increasingly necessary public soup kitchens and warm rooms. In addition, also in the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy, a position as a war nurse proved particularly attractive to many thousands of women – not only in the more or less safe “hinterland”, but also in the mobile field hospitals, which were often stationed very close to the front lines. Here too, many women signed up voluntarily to personally serve the fatherland and, as some have explicitly expressed it, to be “in the field”. What they experienced there over the years has hardly been studied – especially as the work and the suffering of the war nurses in Austria did not penetrate the collective memory of post-war society. [15]

Research has also made very clear the large extent to which women replaced or had to replace the men who were called up – the longer the war lasted, the greater the extent. Also in Austria-Hungary, this occurred in many occupational fields, from agriculture and industry, offices and businesses to the postal service, rail service and municipal trams. In cities like Vienna or Linz, the female conductors advanced rapidly to become a popular and much-cited wartime phenomenon, and, as such, metaphorically stand for the continual evaluation that the development of women’s work during the war was sensational; thus, it was often overestimated. In the long-term tendency, which also comprised the pre- and post-war periods, and in the synopsis of all branches, there was, however, less of a sensational increase between 1914 and 1918 than a much more striking shift of women’s work to domains that were of importance for the war effort. In particular the greatly expanding arms industry, where besides young people and men exempted from military service many women were employed. [16] Their situation, which was shaped by the lowering of actual wages, extremely long working hours (including at night), bad sanitary conditions and a high risk of industrial injuries, dramatically worsened during the course of the war.  This not only aroused much misery, but also protest, resistance, strike and the claim for peace. The moloch of war thus reached the limits of feasibility.

But the ‘home front’ as I have described so far, which was built and kept alive with the help of so many women´s associations, of course fell apart much earlier. Or rather it was in fact shaped from the very beginning also by social contradictions and immanent class conflicts, competition and resentment, suffering and sadness as well as the rapid onset of disillusionment, protest and the longing for freedom. [17]   This melange also evoked contrary pictures of womanhood and accompanied or more precisely irritated and thwarted the hegemonic gender discourse and the propagated concept of female unity and patriotism as manifested in the women´s war-supporting activities or their new roles as “soldiers of the hinterland”, brave and self-sacrificing war nurses etc. In the Austrian case, such tendencies developed to be especially strong in the second half of the war at the latest.

Already before, a downright ‘battle’ began to rage at the ‘home front’. It was not only about the constant raw material requirements of the war industry, which were given absolute priority, but similarly about foodstuffs and everyday goods. From 1916, this was dominated by dramatic shortages, caused by factors such as the blockade on the part of the Entente, the decline in domestic production and internal imports as well as several failed harvests, which turned day-to-day life into a fight for survival for an increasing number of people. As early as April 1915, a rationing of foodstuffs and basic commodities had set in, which was continually expanded. Nevertheless, the experience of shortages, whether of fuels, soap or clothing, and above all the daily hunger, became drastic, in particular in the cities and large industry regions of the western half of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In parallel, illnesses such as tuberculosis and various deficiency syndromes became more frequent. This  increased the necessity of welfare work through private as well as public initiatives – even if the readiness to perform voluntary relief work had long been nowhere near as great as at the start of the war, and state-organized welfare work had to be relied on to a much larger extent. That way, paradoxically, the war to a certain degree also became a driving force for welfare state tendencies, something that manifested itself at the end of 1917 in the creation of an “Imperial Ministry for Social Welfare” with its own “Commission for Women’s Work” [“Kommission für Frauenarbeit”], in which, again, representatives of the largest women’s organizations participated.

But, as I already said, hunger and shortages became the trigger for widespread resistance, what started already before the “hunger winter” of 1916/17, when the situation escalated dramatically. The first protests took place as early as in the Autumn of 1914, that is only a few weeks after the war had begun, in particular in the form of many spontaneous “inflation demonstrations” and “food riots” at markets and other public places. These were often started by women, youths, and children, and early on also included demands for peace. And from the summer of 1916, targeted protest campaigns of the working population and strikes by the male and female industry labor force, which made various demands, from the improvement of the miserable living and working conditions to concrete labor union issues, became ever more frequent. The first large strike movement took place in May 1917 and still primarily aimed for a reorganization of the standard working hours as well as, in continuation of previous “bread strikes”, the supply of the labor force with sufficient foodstuffs. But this was quickly exceeded or expanded by the increasingly loud demand for peace, like in the large January strike of 1918. Again, many women participated, whereas important representatives of the women´s movement on their part already had begun to put suffrage – and of course peace – again on their agenda. They also participated in the revolutionary events of late 1918, and in 1919/20, when the First Austrian Republic was established, even built a branch of the “International Women´s League for Peace and Liberty”, IFFF,  with the well-known feminist Rosa Mayreder as (the) chairman. Other women, like Olga Misar, were engaged in the also newly founded “League of War Resisters”, and as such propagated radical pacifism.

With these short hints, I come to the end of my remarks. Here I have to summarize that the development I described did not lead to lasting peace, as we all know – albeit even the public awareness was a pacifistic one in the first years after the end of World War I. But in countries such as Austria, or Germany, which remained socially, economically and politically instable during the whole time of the newly-established republics, re-militariziaton of the society soon gained ground again, together with traditional elements of the dichotomous, hierarchically structured gender order. [19]  Women could not really profit from their broad war engagement and all the alleged patriotic duties they carried out during World War I – although female suffrage was introduced in the new Republic of Austria in 1918/19. [20]  Later they even were judged as being responsible for the defeat of their country, as many women had become part of the revolting ‘home front’ and undermined the morale of soldiers, for example by writing lamenting letters to them. All in all, they remained second-class-citizens. Those amongst them who remained or had become pacifists, soon saw themselves at the margin of society again – similarly like men who warned and fought against re-militarization and emerging fascism, what fundamentally changed the remembrance of World War I. It seems to me that the still existing arguments of female pacifists or society as a whole that women per nature were predestinated to be peaceful, that is, the prevailing focus on female motherliness, was one reason for such a marginalization of the peace movement, as it again was perceived as being effeminate or illusionary  what in some respect was also the case after World War II. It reminds us to what Bertha von Suttner believed and fought for. Her example forces us to see women´s responsibility for ‘modern’ and ‘total’ warfare of the 20th century, despite their alleged motherliness and ‘natural pacifism’, and to examine very closely the complex relationships between gender definitions and gender practices and economy, politics and power, military institutions, nationalism or related processes of inclusion and exclusion etc. Bertha von Suttner already knew that, and we should learn from her also in this respect. This is one of the chances the centenary of her death, which tragically is the centenary of the outbreak of World War I as well, offers.


Christa Hämmerle is a University  Professor  of Modern History and Women´s and Gender History at the Department of History of the University of Vienna. In addition, Professor Hämmerle is co-founder and -editor of L'Homme. Europäische Zeitschrift für Feministische Geschichtswissenschaft and chair of the Sammlung Frauennachlässe (Collection of Women´s Personal Papers).

Her main fields of research are: women and gender relations and war in the 19th and 20th century as well as gender history of the Austro-Hungarian military (1868–1914/18), history of auto/biographical writings and the history of love. Professor Hämmerle is currently leading a research project on “Writing (about) Love? Historical Analyses regarding the Negotiation of Gender Relations and Positions in Couple Correspondences of the 19th and 20th Century” (together with Ingrid Bauer).


[1] Forward-looking to the Universal Peace Congress in Rome (November 1891), Bertha von Suttner published an appeal to establish an Austrian“Gesellschaft der Friedensfreunde” [“Austrian Society of Friends of Peace]” in
the “Neue Freie Presse” of September 3rd 1891, which received many positiveanswers and donations. She became the president of this society, which was founded shortly after that – a position she kept until her death. In 1895, she also founded a Hungarian Peace Society

[2] From 1892 onwards, Fried and von Suttner published the pacifist periodical „Die Waffen nieder“ [„Lay [Down Your Arms“], and from 1899 onwards „Die Friedenswarte“. The cooperation of Fried and von Suttner is analysed in: Bernhard Tuider, Alfred Hermann Fried – ein “Adlatus” oder Inspirator von Bertha von Suttner? Neue Perspektiven auf die Beziehung zweier Leitfiguren der österreichischen Friedensbewegung, in: Wiener Zeitschrift zur Geschichte der Neuzeit 9/2 (2009), pp. 134-162; idem, Alfred Hermann Fried. Pazifist im Ersten Weltkrieg – Illusion und Vision, Saarbrücken 2010.

[3] Cf. Laurie R. Cohen (ed.), „Gerade weil Sie eine Frau sind ...“ Bertha von Suttner, die unbekannte Friedensnobelpreisträgerin, Vienna 2005; Brigitte Hamann, Bertha von Suttner. Ein Leben für den Frieden, Munich 1986 [new edition Vienna 2013].

[4]  Cf Brigitte Hamann, Österreichische Frauen in der Friedensbewegung, in: Aufbruch in das Jahrhundert der Frau? Rosa Mayreder und der Feminismus in Wien um 1900, edited by Museen der Stadt Wien, Vienna 1989, pp. 134-142; Laurie R. Cohen, Seite an Seite, gegen den Strom. Die frühen Jahre der österreichischen Friedensbewegung und der Vereinigung gegen Judendiskriminierung, in: idem, “Gerade weil sie eine Frau sind …”, pp. 82-87.

[5]  See for exemple: Alison Fell and Ingrid Sharp, Introduction: The Women´s Movement and the First World War, in: ibid. (eds.), The Women´s Movement in Wartime. International Perspectives, 1914-1919, Houndsmill/Basingstoke, New York 2007, pp. 1-17; Jennifer Anne Davy, Karen Hagemann and Ute Kätzel (eds.), Frieden – Gewalt – Geschlecht. Friedens- und Konfliktforschung als Geschlechterforschung, Essen 2005.

[6] Bertha von Suttner, Die Friedensbewegung und die Frauen, in: Die Waffen nieder. Monatsschrift zur Förderung der Friedensbewegung,  IV/7, (1895), p. 254. [In German: „Soweit meine persönlichen Erfahrungen reichen, besteht mit Bezug auf ihre Stellung zur Friedensfrage kein Unterschied zwischen den Menschen männlichen und weiblichen Geschlechts. Begeisterung für Kriegsthaten und Kriegshelden findet man bei Frauen so gut wie bei Männern, Begeisterung und Energie für die Friedensbewegung wird von Frauen ebenso intensiv an den Tag gelegt wie von Männern … “]

[7]Hamann, Österreichische Frauen in der Friedensbewegung, p. 141.

[8] Cf. Der Bund. Zentralblatt des Bundes Österr.Frauenvereine, IX/5 (May 1915), pp. 1-5, IX/6 (June 1914), pp. 1-6.

[9] See the quote in: Hamann, Österreichische Frauen in der Friedensbewegung, p. 141. [In German: “Seien sie mir gegrüßt und beglückwünscht, verehrte Kämpferinnen. Denn also solche werden sie sich bewähren müssen: Es wird Ihnen nicht ganz leicht gemacht werden, für die pazifistischen Ideale einzutreten. Auch unter den Frauen selbst dürften Ihnen viele Gegnerinnen erwachsen. Es ist durchaus nicht richtig, wie manche behaupten, die in der Friedensbewegung nur eine unmännliche Sentimentalität sehen, daß alle Frauen von Natur aus dem Krieg abhold sind. Nein, nur die fortschrittlich gesinnte Frauen, nur solche, die sich zu sozialem Denken erzogen haben, sind es, die die Kraft haben, sich vom Banne tausendjähriger Institutionen zu befreien …”]

[10]  Fell/Sharp, Introduction, p. 11, citing Ute Gerhard, The “Long Waves” of Women´s Movements from an International Perspective, conference paper delivered at the Nordic Conference in Iceland 2004, available online at:­_pdf/gerhard.pdf

[11] The assumption of an overall “war enthusiasm” which motivated European societies in summer 1914 has been rightly criticized by new research.

[12] following to: Christa Hämmerle, Gendered Narratives of the First World War: The Example of Former Austria, in: Marco Mondini and Massimo Rospocher (eds.), Narrating War. Early Modern and Contemporary Perspectives, Berlin/Bologna 2013, pp. 173-187; ibid, Heimat/Front. Geschlechtergeschichte/n des Ersten Weltkrigs in Österreich-Ungarn, Vienna/Cologne/Weimar 2014, pp. 12–16, 85–103.

[13] Reprinted in: Marianne Hainisch, Der Krieg, in: Der Bund. Zentralblatt des Bundes österr. Frauenvereine, IX/8 (Oktober 1914), 1–6, here 6. [In German: “Frauen Oesterreichs!

Beklagenswerte Ereignisse haben Oesterreich den Krieg aufgezwungen. Wir müssen unsere Söhne, Gatten und  Väter in den Kampf ziehen sehen und sehen unser Vaterland allen Schrecken, welche die blutige Rechtssühnung mit sich bringt, ausgesetzt. Unaussprechliches Leid bewegt uns, denn wir teilen die Geschicke unserer Lieben und bangen täglich und stündlich um die Fernen. Sollen wir passiv dulden und leiden? Das geziemt der Gattin und Mutter, der Staatsbürgerin nicht, sondern es ist an uns zu versuchen, wie wir die Not lindern, unsern Soldaten Erleichterungen, der Kriegsführung Unterstützung zuführen können. An den Frauen ist es jetzt ihre Arbeitskräfte, ihre organisatorischen Fähigkeiten und an Geldmitteln, so viel sie aufzubringen vermögen, dem bedrängten Vaterlande zur Verfügung zu stellen.”]

[14] See for Salzburg: Ingrid Bauer, Frauen im Krieg. Patriotismus, Hunger, Protest – Weibliche Lebenszusammenhänge zwischen 1914 und 1918, in: Brigitte Mazohl-Wallnig (ed.), Die Andere Geschichte 1. Eine Salzburger Frauengeschichte von der ersten Mädchenschule (1695) bis zum Frauenwahlrecht (1918), Salzburg/Munich 1995, pp. 283–334, here pp. 283–310; for Linz: Gabriella Hauch, Frauen.Leben.Linz. Frauen- und Geschlechtergeschichte im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Linz 2013, pp. 114-153.

[15]  Christa Hämmerle, "Mentally broken, physically a wreck ...": Violence in War Accounts of Nurses in Austro-Hungarian Service, in: Christa Hämmerle, Oswald Überegger and Birgitta Bader-Zaar (eds.), Gender and the First World War, Houndsmill/Basingstoke 2014, pp. 89-107.

[16] Sigrid Augeneder, Arbeiterinnen im Ersten Weltkrieg. Lebens- und Arbeitsbedingungen der proletarischen Frauen in Österreich, Vienna 1987.

[17] Maureen Healy, Vienna and the Fall of the Habsburg Empire. Total War and Everyday Life in World War I, Cambridge 2004.

[18] Cf. for example Erika Kuhlmann, The ‘Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom’ and Reconciliation after the Great War, in: Fell/Sharp, The Women´s Movement, pp.227–243.

[19] Cf. for example Birgitta Bader-Zaar and Christa Hämmerle, Times of Troubles: Transformationen von Geschlechterordnungen in Nachkriegszeiten des 20. Jahrhunderts – Erster Weltkrieg: Fallbeispiel Österreich, available on:; Christa Hämmerle, 1918 - Vom Ersten Weltkrieg zur Ersten Republik, in: Martin Scheutz, Arno Strohmeyer (eds.), Von Lier nach Brüssel: Schlüsseljahre österreichischer Geschichte (1496-1995), Vienna 2010, pp. 251-271.

[20] Cf. Birgitta Bader-Zaar Gaining the Vote in a World of Transition: Female Suffrage in Austria, in: Blanca Rodríguez-Ruiz/Ruth Rubio-Marín (eds.), The Struggle for Female Suffrage in Europe. Voting to Become Citizens. Leiden/Boston 2012, pp. 191-206; ibid, Women's Suffrage and War: World War I and Political Reform in a Comparative Perspective, in: Irma Sulkunen, Seija-Leena Nevala-Nurmi and Pirjo Markkola (eds.), Suffrage, Gender and Citizenship. International Perspectives on Parliamentary Reforms. Newcastle upon Tyne 2009, pp. 193-218