Nassirisimo
Austria-Hungary had its own ambitions on Ottoman territory. Far from realising the danger that would ensue if the other big multi-ethnic power in the Balkans was to collapse, the Austrians instead maintained designs on establishing itself as a true Balkan Power, expanding down to Thessaloniki.
It seems to me that while this was a stated objective for many, Austria-Hungary's pursuit of such an aim was very lackadaisical and unenthusiastic. For instance, if this design of expanding to Salonika was always such a big deal, why was Austria-Hungary not ready to embrace Bismarck's oft-repeated proposal to partition the Balkans with Russia? Also, interpretations vary. According to LordKalvert,
The Russians had told the Austrians they could have Serbia in 1903 and they wouldn't take it. The Austrians see the Balkans as land they could grab but not land they could hold.
If the drive to Salonika was so important, why did A-H not take Serbia in 1903, and why did it retreat from the Sanjak of Novi Pazar in 1908?
You'd have to have leadership in Austria-Hungary who were willing to realise that they were vulnerable because of the multi-ethnic composition of the Empire.
I think some of them did. The Hungarians in particular seemed to nearly always oppose expansion when in it was on the table, for fear of diluting Magyar influence with more Slavs. It was even a bit of a struggle to get them to agree to war with Serbia in 1914 for this reason.
It seems to me that A-H's occupation of Bosnia, and its annexation of the territory a generation later, was the half-assed compromise between the fear of any expansion/dilution and the ambition to go to Salonika.
I think the Hungarians, who were both more anti-Russian and more hesitant to have the A-H empire enlarge would have been the prime political advocates of any alliance with the Ottomans against the Slavic nations between.
On the other hand, maybe anti-Muslim prejudice, and intra-Christian "peer pressure" made any full-throated pro-Ottoman policy "politically incorrect" for A-H.
Together, the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary were quite capable of holding off the Russians alone until possibly 1910, and could go a long way toward holding down Balkan nationalism.
Agreed
It seems to me that one of the main problems was that European rulers prior to the First World War tended to put too much value on expansion and war as a means to changing the balances of power.
Definitely agreed, although the Austro-Hungarians placed very little stock in war, even when they did have an agenda of expansion. The one time in the early 20th century they did use war, it was one time too many. Quite less room for maneuver than the Entente powers or United States.
In the lead up to the First World War, contrary to the image both to Historians and to the Austro-Hungarians themselves, the country was far from collapsing. The explosive economic growth would have seen Austria-Hungary overtake France economically well before 1920, the existence of societies such as the young Czechs was offset to some degree by the existence of pro-Habsburg societies.
Very interesting observation. I think long ago on a website somebody set up a timeline called "trolley world" that was premised on surviving and thriving Habsburgs.
If you can get a change in the minds of the Habsburgs as to how to preserve their nation in the future, you may get a Austria-Hungary not only willing to concentrate less on war as a means of statecraft, but also one willing to ally with the Ottomans as two multiethnic powers against Russian-encouraged pan-Slavism.
Yes, I agree that my proposal in the OP obviously needs a strategic reappraisal by A-H to get off the ground in the first place. A tricky element of this two is that part of deterring a war means accepting a risk of war with the Balkan states and Russia.
