In the case of Austria-Hungary, anarchism was first damaged by the official and public reaction to the assassination of the Empress Elisabeth by an Italian anarchist, and in due time by the public claim that Gavrilo Princip also was an anarchist (because he had some anarchist writings, along with other pamphlets). I think in more general terms, in this part of Europe,anarchism was destroyed by the First World War (both by public patriotism whether to state or nation, and state suppression), and the congruent rise of Bolshevism, which provided an apparently viable alternative that was both statist and internationalist, rather than an anti-statist one.

Yes to both, thanks. 

The Spanish case provided perhaps the exception, since it was a ‘civil war’, rather than an international war. Yet, the results were nearly identical: 

Extreme state violence justified by calls to Fatherland destroyed successful alternative movements that had arisen in opposition to a political and economic system largely based on social injustice spiraling out of control in the wake rapid social change. 

So a class reading is essential, no doubt, but needs to be supplemented by a cultural reading: 

Decades of cultural homogenization efforts had led to conceive the Fatherland in homogeneous, organic terms, leading to widespread intolerance for cultural, ideological and ethnic diversity.

I recommend a look at David Rapoport's waves of terrorism theory, if it isn't a concept you have as yet encountered? It provides another perspective on your question, with terrorism catching the 'zeitgeist' at the extreme edge of political time in the time period it occurs. The theory presents an explanation for the rise and fall of anarchism, and the successor anti colonialist wave.

Hope this helps.

Just a small addition to Eric's answer: At least in the Austrian half of the Empire, anarchists were never a mass movement. Some of it was a consequence of police measures in the 70s and 80s; but mostly it was a consequence of the success of social democrats. That left little room for anarchists even before WWI.

And in addition to Rok's answer, in the Hungarian half for a brief time there was a Tolstoyan movement that was viciously crushed by the authorities. There's a good article about this. Whether you consider Tolstoyanism to be anarchist or not is your call.

I would be interested in the repression of the Tolstoyian movement in Hungary,  indeed. 

The relative revival of the anarchist movement in Austria that took place in the beginning of the 20th century was certainly connected to Tolstoy. Under his influence they decided for radical pacifism and civil disobedience (see Richard R. Laurence, "Rudolf Grossmann and Anarchist Antimilitarism in Austria before World War I", Peace & Change 14, No. 2 (1989) and Beatrix Müller-Kampel, "Bürgerliche und anarchistische Friedenskonzepte um 1900: Bertha von Suttner und Pierre Ramus", in "Krieg ist der Mord auf Kommando": Bürgerliche und anarchistische Friedenskonzepte: Bertha von Suttner und Pierre Ramus, ed. Beatrix Müller-Kampel (Nettersheim, 2005).

Tolstoy also influenced many others. To give just one example: Slovene lawyer and a Social Democrat Henrik Tuma declared that he is a "theoretical anarchist in the sense of Tolstoy, Ibsen, and Zola". And the so-called Free Thinkers were also sympathetic to Tolstoyianism.

However - and as far as I know - the authorities did not react very forcefully. The army was worried, of course, the anarchists were not exacty left alone; but other sympathisers largely were.