Question about an Austrian Turmoil/Civil War

Falecius · Mar 12, 2012

I post this here because I am thinking about a pre-1900 POD, though my question is about a post-1900 timeframe. The scenario assumes that less hostility between Russia and Japan avoids the R-J war. A compromise is reached giving Manchuria to Russia and Korea to Japan. This helps a big deal with Austro-Russian relationships, and basically averts Bosnian crisis. Russia keeps focused on the Far East. Germany and Russia are on friendly terms, Austria and Russia much less so but without OTL animosity. As a result, Entente never soldifies, on the contrary Russian activity in China and Persia antagonizes the British. However, Britain and France are still very close.
Serbia is still hostile to Austria, but has very little room to act and is seen in Vienna as less of threat. Franz Ferdinand does not got to Sarajevo (Bosnia is still annexed by Austria, with full Russian consent) or he goes and nothing happens. This helps very little with the internal problems of Austria, that is still torn apart by competing nationalisms and all her other issues.
So the question is: what happens next to Austria? In 1916, 1917 at most, Franz Joseph dies and Franz Ferdinand becomes Emperor. Immediately after the Ausgleich issue emerges, he'll have to deal with the Hungarians he dislikes so much. I imagine things may go quite nasty, but I have trouble seeing how they could turn out. Would civil war break out, or just political agitation and saber-rattling? Would A-H stay together, and if so, with which sort of agreement? Would it be partitioned, and if so, how? Would other powers otherwise interfere (I can see Italy trying land grabs, for instance)? Any idea?

Snake Featherston · Mar 12, 2012

I think Austria-Hungary, no matter what other PODs would delay a specific war in 1914 is likely to at the very least reach the brink of collapse in 1917 if not go right over it. The problem with an Austro-Hungarian collapse is akin to that of the OTL dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire: too many other states want to carve up the turkey and nobody cares about anyone else's particular claims, while a state that had a total of 50 million people living in it is not by any means simple in terms of said carving up. I could, however, see the road to civil war being marked by misunderstandings and mistakes on the part of the Austrians and a feeback loop of greater and more aggressive demands on the part of the Hungarians.

SavoyTruffle · Mar 12, 2012

Snake Featherston said:
I think Austria-Hungary, no matter what other PODs would delay a specific war in 1914 is likely to at the very least reach the brink of collapse in 1917 if not go right over it. The problem with an Austro-Hungarian collapse is akin to that of the OTL dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire: too many other states want to carve up the turkey and nobody cares about anyone else's particular claims, while a state that had a total of 50 million people living in it is not by any means simple in terms of said carving up. I could, however, see the road to civil war being marked by misunderstandings and mistakes on the part of the Austrians and a feeback loop of greater and more aggressive demands on the part of the Hungarians.

So it was one of the Necessary Weasels of Imperialist European Geopolitics?

Falecius · Mar 12, 2012

Snake Featherston said:
I think Austria-Hungary, no matter what other PODs would delay a specific war in 1914 is likely to at the very least reach the brink of collapse in 1917 if not go right over it. The problem with an Austro-Hungarian collapse is akin to that of the OTL dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire: too many other states want to carve up the turkey and nobody cares about anyone else's particular claims, while a state that had a total of 50 million people living in it is not by any means simple in terms of said carving up. I could, however, see the road to civil war being marked by misunderstandings and mistakes on the part of the Austrians and a feeback loop of greater and more aggressive demands on the part of the Hungarians.

I tend to agree. I toyed with the idea of a stabler, longer-living Austria, but it is really really difficult with a PoD in the 1890s. Civil war is surely a serious possibility, and any internal trouble Austria has would shockwave through the European BoP in heavy ways. What may be the sides of this civil war? Would it be as simple as Cisleithania vs. Hungary at this stage? I have some serious doubts. For example, would Serbia jump in and try to grab BiH? And how would the warring Austrian faction react to such a thing?
By the way, I don't say that Austria is necessarily doomed as a polity, though very likely she is as a Great Power (it wasn't really one already in OTL, in 1914). A possible scenario is that a massive German intervention forces the Hungarians and anyone else back into submission. End of Ausgleich, Austria is de facto puppetized by Germany, and maybe even formally so, with German troops around; maybe with some land is given to Italy, Russia, and possibly Serbia and Romania, to let the other powers swallow the blatant vassalization to Berlin. However, this scenario poses some problems and I am not sure of how likely it is.

Snake Featherston · Mar 12, 2012

SavoyTruffle said:
So it was one of the Necessary Weasels of Imperialist European Geopolitics?

Very much so, yes. The survival of the state meant that a good-sized number of people in Europe existed in a safely "contained" geopolitical sphere that prevented 1) the emergence of a destabilizing order where Russia, Germany, and (depending on the AH PODs that destabilize A-H) possibly the Ottomans now have much greater ambitions and means to achieve them in the region, 2) endemic warfare from weaker, smaller states trying to gain the expanse of their older feudal precursors without the means to achieve this in any enduring sense. Unfortunately the process beginning with the First Ausgleich makes it extremely improbable that Austria-Hungary makes it to 1925, much less the year 2000. AUSTRIA might do it, but Austria-HUNGARY by logic cannot.

Falecius said:
I tend to agree. I toyed with the idea of a stabler, longer-living Austria, but it is really really difficult with a PoD in the 1890s. Civil war is surely a serious possibility, and any internal trouble Austria has would shockwave through the European BoP in heavy ways. What may be the sides of this civil war? Would it be as simple as Cisleithania vs. Hungary at this stage? I have some serious doubts. For example, would Serbia jump in and try to grab BiH? And how would the warring Austrian faction react to such a thing?
By the way, I don't say that Austria is necessarily doomed as a polity, though very likely she is as a Great Power (it wasn't really one already in OTL, in 1914). A possible scenario is that a massive German intervention forces the Hungarians and anyone else back into submission. End of Ausgleich, Austria is de facto puppetized by Germany, and maybe even formally so, with German troops around; maybe with some land is given to Italy, Russia, and possibly Serbia and Romania, to let the other powers swallow the blatant vassalization to Berlin. However, this scenario poses some problems and I am not sure of how likely it is.

It would be a multi-sided civil war, that's for certain. I think it would gradually degenerate into one in an atmosphere of growing hostility, with neither Cislethania nor Hungary able to actually back down, with both facing challenges from the more assertive nationalisms in their interior borders. Thus in a sense you have a big war: Cislethania v. Hungary, and probably multiple little wars, Cislethania v. Poles, Cislethania v. Italians, Cislethania v. Czechs, Hungary v. Slovaks. Hungary v. Romanians, Hungary v. Slovenes......

This'd be as convoluted as Russia's Civil War, to put it mildly.

Falecius · Mar 12, 2012

Snake Featherston said:
Very much so, yes. The survival of the state meant that a good-sized number of people in Europe existed in a safely "contained" geopolitical sphere that prevented 1) the emergence of a destabilizing order where Russia, Germany, and (depending on the AH PODs that destabilize A-H) possibly the Ottomans now have much greater ambitions and means to achieve them in the region, 2) endemic warfare from weaker, smaller states trying to gain the expanse of their older feudal precursors without the means to achieve this in any enduring sense. Unfortunately the process beginning with the First Ausgleich makes it extremely improbable that Austria-Hungary makes it to 1925, much less the year 2000. AUSTRIA might do it, but Austria-HUNGARY by logic cannot.

It would be a multi-sided civil war, that's for certain. I think it would gradually degenerate into one in an atmosphere of growing hostility, with neither Cislethania nor Hungary able to actually back down, with both facing challenges from the more assertive nationalisms in their interior borders. Thus in a sense you have a big war: Cislethania v. Hungary, and probably multiple little wars, Cislethania v. Poles, Cislethania v. Italians, Cislethania v. Czechs, Hungary v. Slovaks. Hungary v. Romanians, Hungary v. Slovenes......

This'd be as convoluted as Russia's Civil War, to put it mildly.

That seems likely; it looks quite like dissolution of Jugoslavia on fucking steroids (actually, a conflict like the Jugoslavian one would be a part of the whole mess). But I hardly see any of the neighboring countries staying outside the mess for long, especially Serbia and Romania, if occasion arises, and especially Italy and Germany. Russia may be willing to enter the picture too, though in my scenario she is quite busy in Asia and content with its situation, with a far larger sphere in the Far East and no humiliation with Japan to avenge.
I would like to keep the human and material losses of this conflict more or less as low as possible, but "as low as possible" may be still pretty bad.

Snake Featherston · Mar 12, 2012

Falecius said:
That seems likely; it looks quite like dissolution of Jugoslavia on fucking steroids (actually, a conflict like the Jugoslavian one would be a part of the whole mess). But I hardly see any of the neighboring countries staying outside the mess for long, especially Serbia and Romania, if occasion arises, and especially Italy and Germany. Russia may be willing to enter the picture too, though in my scenario she is quite busy in Asia and content with its situation, with a far larger sphere in the Far East and no humiliation with Japan to avenge.
I would like to keep the human and material losses of this conflict more or less as low as possible, but "as low as possible" may be still pretty bad.

The devil is in the details, and it's pretty much improbable to keep the Ottomans, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, and the like from starting a general European war when Austria-Hungary's problems go boom. I think we'd see a start to this war that in a sense parallels the start of the Lebanese Civil War, the two sides gradually begin arming, small-scale clashes turn into larger-scale clashes, as armed force becomes a basic political element everybody arms more, further destabilizing the situation. This leads either Cislethania or Hungary to gamble on a single big battle to forestall the kind of protracted destabilization that would undermine both rival nobilities, this attack of course doesn't work well for the one that tries, this point is when the ATL's histories record the actual serious fighting as starting.

And from there we get a civil war in Europe that rivals the ones in Lebanon, Russia, and Mexico 1910-20s IOTL.

Grey Wolf · Mar 12, 2012

Austria-Hungary survived surprisingly well until defeat on several fronts brought about its collapse. I certainly do not buy the inevitability of this.

But the OP is right to highlight the problem with the Hungarians. Giving in too much more would mean that in effect you have two states with one head of state - not unknown, since that is what the British Empire consisted of by the 1930s at the latest, fully autonomous dominions who could, and usually, would back Britain but without it being the foregone conclusion it used to be.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Falecius · Mar 12, 2012

Snake Featherston said:
The devil is in the details, and it's pretty much improbable to keep the Ottomans, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, and the like from starting a general European war when Austria-Hungary's problems go boom. I think we'd see a start to this war that in a sense parallels the start of the Lebanese Civil War, the two sides gradually begin arming, small-scale clashes turn into larger-scale clashes, as armed force becomes a basic political element everybody arms more, further destabilizing the situation. This leads either Cislethania or Hungary to gamble on a single big battle to forestall the kind of protracted destabilization that would undermine both rival nobilities, this attack of course doesn't work well for the one that tries, this point is when the ATL's histories record the actual serious fighting as starting.

And from there we get a civil war in Europe that rivals the ones in Lebanon, Russia, and Mexico 1910-20s IOTL.

Your description of how the civil war starts seems quite plausible to me. FF was quite an impulsive guy AFAIK and may decide to send the actual army in Budapest to show who really rules the place. In all likelyhood, it would backfire horribly. Another possibility is, he realizes that negotiation for internal reform are going nowhere and decides for a foreign diversion, against either Italy or Serbia I suppose. It would backfire even more horribly IMVHO.
Russia is not so overtly hostile as in OTL, but won't stand unprovoked aggression against Serbia either, and even Germany may be not so willing to offer unconditional support. With Italy is even worse. The OTL defensive treaties with France may be butterflied away (there are several holes in this part of the scenario) but France would likely do something no matter what.

Falecius · Mar 12, 2012

Grey Wolf said:
Austria-Hungary survived surprisingly well until defeat on several fronts brought about its collapse. I certainly do not buy the inevitability of this.

But the OP is right to highlight the problem with the Hungarians. Giving in too much more would mean that in effect you have two states with one head of state - not unknown, since that is what the British Empire consisted of by the 1930s at the latest, fully autonomous dominions who could, and usually, would back Britain but without it being the foregone conclusion it used to be.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

The problem I see is that the people likely to be in charge are unlikely to be giving in anything. IIRC, Franz Ferdinand wanted to reduce the autonomy Hungary already had, and this sounds like recipe for disaster.
I also don't think that destruction of the country is unavoidable. It is very likely, because its ruling class was unable to adress rising issues properly and the national problems were increasing. A complete national outbreak all of a sudden in peacetime is not likely, while I see the plausibility of Snakes's scenario: mounting tension, armed militias starting forming in a tenser political enviroment, talks between parties unable to reach any reasonable agreement... and everything spirals towards a nasty end. How nasty, it depends. A key point will be the duration of the crisis. The longer it mounts, the worst. And this is what I see as more likely, exactly because no side really wants to solve the matter with violence at the beginning...
By the way, Slovenia seems to me a quite plausible place for possible militia fighting to start. There was a particularly harsh national confrontation there over linguistic issues.

von Adler · Mar 12, 2012

I don't buy Austria-Hungary collapsing either. Germany have a vested interest in a stable Austria-Hungary as their ally, and allowing the Habsburgs to fall would be an enormous loss of prestige for the German government. Likewise, the Russians showed well enough 1848-1849 that they would not tolerate any reovlutionary or nationalist liberations if they were capable of stopping it.

Left to want a piece of Austria-Hungary are the Romanians, Serbs and Italians, all of which most likely would shelve such plans with German threats and without French and British support, which would hardly come for an aggressive landgrab against a state dealing with internal matters.

With German support, and probably Russian silent approval, the Austrian army would very well be capable of dealing with any Hungarian insurgency. The Hungarian serfs were voting with their feet at this time, leaving for USA in the tens of thousands, and the Slovaks, Transylvanians, Croats and Serbs in Hungary had no love for the Hungarian nobility. Note how Hungary immediately collapsed into a communit republic when they did gain their independence.

The last notes and discussions Franz Ferdinand held seemed to indicate that he intended to not accept the crown of Saint Stephen unless the Hungarians gave up their special status, intending fully to provoke a civil war, a war he thought he, Austria, the Hungarian minorities, Germany and the Hungarian disenfranchised population could win easily. Then he would build a more centralised federal state with one parliament and equal rights for all.

While it is not an ideal state or ideal situation, I think it is quite feasible. After all. Britain is organised much along the same lines, and when it was, people spoke at least 4 languages.

Snake Featherston · Mar 12, 2012

Grey Wolf said:
Austria-Hungary survived surprisingly well until defeat on several fronts brought about its collapse. I certainly do not buy the inevitability of this.

But the OP is right to highlight the problem with the Hungarians. Giving in too much more would mean that in effect you have two states with one head of state - not unknown, since that is what the British Empire consisted of by the 1930s at the latest, fully autonomous dominions who could, and usually, would back Britain but without it being the foregone conclusion it used to be.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Austria-Hungary was also repeatedly invaded through the war, with nobody liking an invader. Hungary was turning into a state within a state, a state that did not like the umbrella state it was attached to. Hungary also established its modern identity with the most successful of the 1848 Revolutions, which the new Hungarian nationalists would identify with, while Cislethania would be arming "just in case" and trying to *prevent* as opposed to forestalling the war. I don't see either nobility *wanting* such a war, but I can see it spiraling from a steady arming of the populace producing shoot first, ask questions later mentalities which turns into the shit hitting the fan.

Falecius said:
Your description of how the civil war starts seems quite plausible to me. FF was quite an impulsive guy AFAIK and may decide to send the actual army in Budapest to show who really rules the place. In all likelyhood, it would backfire horribly. Another possibility is, he realizes that negotiation for internal reform are going nowhere and decides for a foreign diversion, against either Italy or Serbia I suppose. It would backfire even more horribly IMVHO.
Russia is not so overtly hostile as in OTL, but won't stand unprovoked aggression against Serbia either, and even Germany may be not so willing to offer unconditional support. With Italy is even worse. The OTL defensive treaties with France may be butterflied away (there are several holes in this part of the scenario) but France would likely do something no matter what.

I think the problem with entirely averting foreign intervention is that if A-H implodes, 1) the Ottomans will want Bosnia back, 2) Serbia also wants Bosnia, 3) the Austro-Hungarian state has more such problems like this than you can shake a stick at, and 4) a failed attempt to redraw the empire was the deep historical root of WWII IOTL. This being the *start* of WWI is a bad sign that whatever happens after the war will be more, not less, destabilized than IOTL.

Wolfpaw · Mar 12, 2012

I always thought that the Austrians could have tried to coop Catholic Slavdom by giving Croats a favored-nation status in a "Kingdom of Dalmatia" or something. A Triune Monarchy, if you will. The Czechs are a another question, though. Italy is a problem, but it's not like their record against Austria is all that stunning.

The Poles aren't all that worrisome. I mean who is going to help them? Neither Germany nor Russia wants to deal with a resurgent Poland or another massive Polish upheaval.

Snake Featherston · Mar 12, 2012

von Adler said:
I don't buy Austria-Hungary collapsing either. Germany have a vested interest in a stable Austria-Hungary as their ally, and allowing the Habsburgs to fall would be an enormous loss of prestige for the German government. Likewise, the Russians showed well enough 1848-1849 that they would not tolerate any reovlutionary or nationalist liberations if they were capable of stopping it.

Left to want a piece of Austria-Hungary are the Romanians, Serbs and Italians, all of which most likely would shelve such plans with German threats and without French and British support, which would hardly come for an aggressive landgrab against a state dealing with internal matters.

With German support, and probably Russian silent approval, the Austrian army would very well be capable of dealing with any Hungarian insurgency. The Hungarian serfs were voting with their feet at this time, leaving for USA in the tens of thousands, and the Slovaks, Transylvanians, Croats and Serbs in Hungary had no love for the Hungarian nobility. Note how Hungary immediately collapsed into a communit republic when they did gain their independence.

The last notes and discussions Franz Ferdinand held seemed to indicate that he intended to not accept the crown of Saint Stephen unless the Hungarians gave up their special status, intending fully to provoke a civil war, a war he thought he, Austria, the Hungarian minorities, Germany and the Hungarian disenfranchised population could win easily. Then he would build a more centralised federal state with one parliament and equal rights for all.

While it is not an ideal state or ideal situation, I think it is quite feasible. After all. Britain is organised much along the same lines, and when it was, people spoke at least 4 languages.

Well, my scenario reflects two things:

1) that the Austro-Hungarian leadership was really reluctant to use a whiff of grapeshot. This is why Cislethania in this case doesn't simply go in and hang all the Hungarians before their scheming fairly gets started. Austro-Hungarian leaders had enough moral fiber to avert doing this, it's more Gorbachev-type stuff than being a Tsar Nicholas ready to drop the hammer at real and imagined enemies alike.

2) That the war is not deliberately sought by anybody but escalates from an increasingly tense situation and mutual mistakes on both sides, and that the shit hits the fan as part of a gradual process. More the evolution of the Lebanese Civil War than the "simpler" scenarios seen in some other civil wars.

Falecius · Mar 12, 2012

Snake: the question is post 1913, and the Balkan Wars happen more or less on schedule with overall similar results. So the Ottomans cannot seriously do much about Bosnia. Serbians may instead.

Snake Featherston · Mar 12, 2012

Falecius said:
Snake: the question is post 1913, and the Balkan Wars happen more or less on schedule with overall similar results. So the Ottomans cannot seriously do much about Bosnia. Serbians may instead.

Ah. Then that's a fair point. And in this case the Serbs may have at least initial support among a fair number of Bosniaks.

Falecius · Mar 12, 2012

Snake Featherston said:
Ah. Then that's a fair point. And in this case the Serbs may have at least initial support among a fair number of Bosniaks.

Well, yes. But I suppose they won't dare to move until troubles in the rest of the country are well underway. Also, Serbia should be careful no to attract the full weight of the German wrath on herself. Claiming to be acting to protect Austrian Serbs against the Hungarians could be a start, but it may not warrant Bosnia. However, the Serbian government of the time was not exactly the wisest in the world when it came at picking fights in OTL. This may change TTL though. I am not even sure the Obrenovic are exterminated since it is after the POD, but probably they are. I know little of Serbian internal politics of the time.

Marko · Mar 12, 2012

von Adler said:
Then he would build a more centralised federal state with one parliament and equal rights for all.

The moment the Habsburgs do that they lose the Croats as their south-slavic support column and give Croats every incentive to see completely eye to eye with the Serbs. The Croats were loyal in 1848/9 and were betrayed by Vienna afterwards. Being betrayed twice will not go down easily especialy since Croat-Serb coalition is in power in Zagreb.

So the goverment in Vienna would get two civil wars in a single package. First with Austrians and minorities in Hungary smashing the Hungarian nobility followed by a South-slav uprising and total chaos in Hungary as minorities and Hungarian pesantry/citizen leadership would start clashing over zones of control the moment the Austrian army marches south.

The question remains what would the Czechs and Poles do?

Falecius · Mar 12, 2012

Marko said:
The moment the Habsburgs do that they lose the Croats as their south-slavic support column and give Croats every incentive to see completely eye to eye with the Serbs. The Croats were loyal in 1848/9 and were betrayed by Vienna afterwards. Being betrayed twice will not go down easily especialy since Croat-Serb coalition is in power in Zagreb.

So the goverment in Vienna would get two civil wars in a single package. First with Austrians and minorities in Hungary smashing the Hungarian nobility followed by a South-slav uprising and total chaos in Hungary as minorities and Hungarian pesantry/citizen leadership would start clashing over zones of control the moment the Austrian army marches south.

The question remains what would the Czechs and Poles do?

Marko, thanks. I had actually little clue as to what the Croats would do. Would they support an Hungarian declaration of independence? Would they welcome a subsequent Serb invasion?

Marko · Mar 12, 2012

Would they support an Hungarian declaration of independence?

They would as long as Hungarians would declare Croatia is/was a separate kingdom from Hungary united only in the person of the ruler. Getting that from a Hungarian goverment made out of nobility was less likely than Croats being the first nation to the moon at that time. Though I believe a sort of mutualy acceptable agreement could have been made with a non-noble goverment.

Would they welcome a subsequent Serb invasion?

Invasion? NO. Armed intervetion on their invitation or joint military action. Yes. Croats and Serbs in Croatia worked well together until the Ustasha idiots started massacering them in WWII, Croats had problems and were mistrustful of the goverment in Belgrade. The point that shows the level of co-operation between Croats and Serbs in Croatia is that they jointly opposed the goverment in Belgrade from 1927 since even for Serbs in Croatia first Yugoslavia did not end being what they wanted. They wanted to be equals of Serbs in Serbia proper but ended being treated like pawns.

The more I think about the subject at hand the more I am inclined to belive that Vienna would face an Empire wide socialist uprising once the Hungarian nobility is out of the picture (since they were a thorn in the eye of to many factions). A sort of nationalist coloured socialist uprising launched by each group independently but with a common goal of getting rid of the goverment in Vienna that has been opressing them(at least in their opinion).