Franz Josof dies Spring 1914

Derek Jackson · Nov 10, 2014

As I understand the Austrian Emporer did get quite ill at that time.

If his father died. obviously Emporer Franz Ferdinand visiting Sarajevo is less likely.

How long is WW1 going to be postponed. Is it going to be prevented. How reformable was the Austrian Empire and how much would Franz do so

rast · Nov 10, 2014

Franz Ferdinand was a nephew, not a son. The son had committed suicide in 1889.
FF was not a pleasant character, rather a bully and a squaller. So, change from Franz Joseph, who in his dignity personified the empire, to FF would most probably have led to serious troubles in holding together the already disintegrating empire. On the other hand, FF was the A-H peace party; he tried to avoid war.

Now, internal upheaval could have kept the Austro-Hungarians busy with themselves, and perhaps have avoided strife with Serbia. - If not the Serbs tried to exploit the situation by grabbing Bosnia - with Russian support, in which case one would be back at square one...

In Russia, the conviction that A-H was moribund was ubiquitous, so I can see the Russians too in action to exploit the situation. By 1914, the Russians were sure of unconditional French support - and also believed that Britain would be on their side in case of war. So, Russian aggression might happen like IOTL. - However, the window will be small. With the arrival of the British build dreadnoughts on the Bosporus Straits, the Russians will switch to a long-time strategy again.

Cronos988 · Nov 10, 2014

rast said:
Franz Ferdinand was a nephew, not a son. The son had committed suicide in 1889.
FF was not a pleasant character, rather a bully and a squaller. So, change from Franz Joseph, who in his dignity personified the empire, to FF would most probably have led to serious troubles in holding together the already disintegrating empire. On the other hand, FF was the A-H peace party; he tried to avoid war.

Franz Ferdinand did, however, have some interesting ideas for the reorganisation of the dual monarchy, which might have stabilized A-H on the long term. Though making such changes would certainly have met with opposition from the Hungarian elites.

rast said:
Now, internal upheaval could have kept the Austro-Hungarians busy with themselves, and perhaps have avoided strife with Serbia. - If not the Serbs tried to exploit the situation by grabbing Bosnia - with Russian support, in which case one would be back at square one...

Wasn't A-H not acting due to internal strive basically the situation for several years prior to WW1? I don't think Serbia is going to directly attack A-H, though their activity to undermine A-H's hold over Bosnia certainly continues.

rast said:
In Russia, the conviction that A-H was moribund was ubiquitous, so I can see the Russians too in action to exploit the situation. By 1914, the Russians were sure of unconditional French support - and also believed that Britain would be on their side in case of war. So, Russian aggression might happen like IOTL. - However, the window will be small. With the arrival of the British build dreadnoughts on the Bosporus Straits, the Russians will switch to a long-time strategy again.

Would Russia really risk starting a european war without provocation? They were certainly willing to use a pretext in order to declare war, but I'd say just internal strife in A-H isn't a good reason, especially not if the internal strife is caused by FF championing the cause of the slav and croat minorities against the magyar elites.

von Adler · Nov 10, 2014

While Franz Ferdinand had a bad temper and was prone to being rash at times, he did think things through and could famously be calmed instantly by his wife (who just touched his arm and said 'Franzi, Franzi...' when he flew into a rage).

By 1914, Franz Ferdinand had abandoned the triple (or quadruple) monarchy idea and was looking for a federated empire instead. Every part that wanted a parliament might get one, but the foreign, defence and budget policy would be handled by an Imperial parliament in Vienna.

Franz Ferdinand looked to replace von Hötzendorff as supreme commander since they disagreed on war and peace (Franz Ferdinand was part of the peace party and von Hötzendorff part of the war party).

The big question is how Franz Ferdinand handles the Hungarian parliament - he will probably appoint a loyal Prime Minister and force through a suffrage reform (Austria had male suffrage, Hungary only allowed land owners to vote, which together with heavy gerrymandering allowed the Hungarian nobility to control 90% of the positions in the parliament). If the parliament opposes him, he can dissolve it and send in the army. Suffrage has ensured him the support of at least half of the ethnic Hungarians and all their minorities (Serbs in Banat, Romanians in Transylvania, Germans in Siebenburgen and westen Hungary, Slovaks in Slovakia and Croats in Croatia). If the Hungarian parliament resists him, he can just send in the army and crush them.

He'll have the enthusiastic diplomatic and economical support of Germany - Serbia might have support from France and Russia, but not for uniliteral offensive action. The Bosnians were actually quite appreciative of the Austrians at the time - they tried to lynch Gavrilo Princip after the murders OTL. The fact that the Serbs in Bosnia was rather content with Austrial rule (which had brought law and order, potal service, roads and railorads, telegraph and telephone and had caused quite some economic growth) was what the Black Hand feared the most.

kalamona · Nov 10, 2014

von Adler said:
.

The big question is how Franz Ferdinand handles the Hungarian parliament - he will probably appoint a loyal Prime Minister and force through a suffrage reform (Austria had male suffrage, Hungary only allowed land owners to vote, which together with heavy gerrymandering allowed the Hungarian nobility to control 90% of the positions in the parliament). If the parliament opposes him, he can dissolve it and send in the army. Suffrage has ensured him the support of at least half of the ethnic Hungarians and all their minorities (Serbs in Banat, Romanians in Transylvania, Germans in Siebenburgen and westen Hungary, Slovaks in Slovakia and Croats in Croatia). If the Hungarian parliament resists him, he can just send in the army and crush them.

At this point, only about 6% of the population was eligable to vote in Hungary. I am not aware of any gerrymanderig -could have been, tough - but the election process was open (not secret ballot).
And, btw, pre-war the agrarian and SD movements were a big issue in Hungary, and any suffrage reforms (universal male, like in the austrian half), good luck with any resistance on behalf of the parlament/magnates.

So, IMHO "handling" them ould have been not that hard. But handling the next parlament, one with a liberal/socialdemocratic/agrarian majority... thats quite another one.

Of course, they would be grateful for a while and he could have thrown the magnates to them (land reforms, social reforms), he was not very fond of them anyway, but thats prety much radical, somewhat "rudolfian".

rast · Nov 10, 2014

Cronos988 said:
Would Russia really risk starting a european war without provocation? They were certainly willing to use a pretext in order to declare war, but I'd say just internal strife in A-H isn't a good reason, especially not if the internal strife is caused by FF championing the cause of the slav and croat minorities against the magyar elites.

Provocation is a loose concept. IOTL, partial Austro-Hungarian mobilisation strictly opposite Serbia only, 'provocated' them into full mobilisation opposite Germany and Austria-Hungary.
Would a Czech uprising in Bohemia suppressed by loyal A-H troops 'provocate' them into something similar? Or a staged Serbian revolt in Bosnia?

The Russian expectation was that in a general European war the Entente would serve them possession of the Bosporus Strait on a silver plattern. (Which is exactly what happened, only that Russia's collapse ended the game before the gains could be called.)
So, there was no reason not to feel provocated by whatever came handy.

Halagaz · Nov 10, 2014

von Adler said:
By 1914, Franz Ferdinand had abandoned the triple (or quadruple) monarchy idea and was looking for a federated empire instead. Every part that wanted a parliament might get one, but the foreign, defence and budget policy would be handled by an Imperial parliament in Vienna.

Franz Ferdinand was never fully into the triple monarchy or the federal empire idea; His big project was, like you said below, forcing universal suffrage onto Hungary and using it to increase the central government's power and create a more sustainable system.

von Adler said:
The Bosnians were actually quite appreciative of the Austrians at the time - they tried to lynch Gavrilo Princip after the murders OTL.

There were ethnic riots against Serbs in Sarajevo after the assassinations, but they did not enjoy the unanimous support of the community.

von Adler said:
The fact that the Serbs in Bosnia was rather content with Austrial rule (which had brought law and order, potal service, roads and railorads, telegraph and telephone and had caused quite some economic growth) was what the Black Hand feared the most.

No, the Serbs of Bosnia absolutely despised Austrian rule.

Vienna kept the old Ottoman feudal-agrarian completely unchanged in Bosnia, keeping a very large chunk of the Serbian population in poverty. A handful of rich Bosniak-Muslim aristocrats owned 91,1 % of the land. After the war, Austrian politicians themselves (Baernreither) acknowledged that the Serbian discontent was very real and that the mistake of keeping the ancient feudal system in Bosnia was its chief instigator.

Combined with cultural repression and other abuses, this created a situation of mass resentment among the local Serbian plurality. Every single member of the assassin group was from Bosnia. Local Serb youths had been trying to kill various Austrian officials since 1910 - before they even saw a single Black Hand member. Before the Black Hand was even formed, in fact. This is more or less the opposite of "content".

Richter von Manthofen · Nov 14, 2014

Franz Ferdinand (Franz II as Emperor) would "force" change in the Dual Monarchy - the speed of change would depend on many things, but he would be inclined to support a federisation of the Monarchy - wth the goal of strengthenuing the central grip (divide et impera).

On a war against Serbia he said the following:
Führen wir einen Spezialkrieg mit Serbien, so werden wir es in kürzester Zeit über den Haufen rennen, aber was dann? Und was haben wir davon? Erstens fällt dann ganz Europa über uns her (…) und Gott behüte uns, wenn wir Serbien annektieren; ein total verschuldetes Land mit Königsmördern, Spitzbuben etc. Und wo wir noch nicht einmal mit Bosnien fertig werden (…) Und jetzt gibt es meiner Meinung nach nur die Politik, zuzuschauen, wie sich die anderen die Schädel einhauen, sie soviel als möglich aufeinanderhetzen und für die Monarchie den Frieden zu erhalten.

If we fight a separate war against Serbia, we will defeat it in short time, but what comes then? What will we gain by it?. Europe will attack us... And God help us if we annex Serbia, a country in debt, a country of Kings killers and rouges. This if we can't hold Bosnia down. Our policy should be sitting back and let the others fight among themselves, to agitate them into a fight and keep peace for the Monarchy. (hope I got the spirit into the translation)

His analysis was quite spot on - prophetic in some points.

It was notr all well in Austria-Hungary, but it was not all bad either.

Some of the pros (at least for the Austrian half) was a functional bureaucracy, reliable justice system, a quite good health service and quite liberal laws concerning the interaction of minorities. Austria Hungary was the only christian dominated state then which had a law regulating the relations with its muslim citizens (Islam was a recognized and "equal" religion - including islamic education in schools). Of course that policy also meant that the "old islamic elites" would keep their lands (no land reform to speak of).

FF being Emperor in 1914 would certainly mean no (austrian made) war in 1914.

LordKalvert · Nov 14, 2014

rast said:
Franz Ferdinand was a nephew, not a son. The son had committed suicide in 1889.
FF was not a pleasant character, rather a bully and a squaller. So, change from Franz Joseph, who in his dignity personified the empire, to FF would most probably have led to serious troubles in holding together the already disintegrating empire. On the other hand, FF was the A-H peace party; he tried to avoid war.

FF had many ideas for internal reforms. Which ones he implemented and how would have been interesting. He would certainly have run into conflict with some groups (the Hungarian nobility and the Germans) who had done well under the old system. Others, like the Slavs and Hungarian peasants, may have welcomed his changes

The nationality problems are mostly middle class issues- access to civil service jobs is the main driver. Take the Czech German quarrels in Bohemia for example. The issue is what language to be used for local administration. If that is German, then the Germans do fine but if its Czech almost all the jobs would go to Czechs because while many Czechs knew German (the language of internal communication) few Germans knew Czech

Now, internal upheaval could have kept the Austro-Hungarians busy with themselves, and perhaps have avoided strife with Serbia. - If not the Serbs tried to exploit the situation by grabbing Bosnia - with Russian support, in which case one would be back at square one...

In Russia, the conviction that A-H was moribund was ubiquitous, so I can see the Russians too in action to exploit the situation. By 1914, the Russians were sure of unconditional French support - and also believed that Britain would be on their side in case of war. So, Russian aggression might happen like IOTL. - However, the window will be small. With the arrival of the British build dreadnoughts on the Bosporus Straits, the Russians will switch to a long-time strategy again.

The Serbs are very unlikely to overtly start a war with Austria and Russia is almost assured not to support such a move. That Russia saw the Hapsburg Monarchy as moribound furthers that. If the Russians are convinced that the Austrian Empire is going to collapse under its own weight, why interfere? Just let events run their course and interfere after the civil war destroys the country

FF desperately wanted good relations with Russia- he was more than willing to let Russia have the straits which is the real object of Russian ambition He was also very much feared in Italian circles so the end of the triple alliance is almost a given

But if FF gives Russia the straits which by 1914 no one was really opposed to except for maybe the Italians, Russia may return to the Far East. By 1917, Russia would once again by a Naval power to consider- she would have had 7 Dreadnaughts and 4 Battlecruisers which could tip the balance to Germany or Britain as Russia desired

France would also have gotten to 12 Dreadnaughts making them respectable again. Indeed, the Franco-Russian navy would have been stronger than the German again

Simon · Nov 14, 2014

von Adler said:
By 1914, Franz Ferdinand had abandoned the triple (or quadruple) monarchy idea and was looking for a federated empire instead. Every part that wanted a parliament might get one, but the foreign, defence and budget policy would be handled by an Imperial parliament in Vienna.

If the parliament opposes him, he can dissolve it and send in the army. Suffrage has ensured him the support of at least half of the ethnic Hungarians and all their minorities (Serbs in Banat, Romanians in Transylvania, Germans in Siebenburgen and western Hungary, Slovaks in Slovakia and Croats in Croatia). If the Hungarian parliament resists him, he can just send in the army and crush them.

As someone with a soft spot for the Austro-Hungarian Empire I approve of these measures.

I think the obvious course of action would be to fix the internal Hungarian political situation first which would hopefully allow you to increase the central government's power and improve the overall system, then keep the idea of a federation in reserve for when you next need to placate people.

rast · Nov 14, 2014

LordKalvert said:
The Serbs are very unlikely to overtly start a war with Austria and Russia is almost assured not to support such a move. That Russia saw the Hapsburg Monarchy as moribound furthers that. If the Russians are convinced that the Austrian Empire is going to collapse under its own weight, why interfere? Just let events run their course and interfere after the civil war destroys the country

Serbia was what today would be called a rogue state. Controlled (?) by a band of murderers, Serbia was a loose cannon, nobody really could predict what would come next.
The Russians were driven by the narrowing window of taking over the Straits of Istanbul. Once that window had been closed (delivery of the Ottoman men of war built by Britain), they would have gone to a long-term strategy again. So, yes, no Serbian War (and FF didn't want it), and peace might have preserved for at least two more years.

Cronos988 · Nov 14, 2014

LordKalvert said:
But if FF gives Russia the straits which by 1914 no one was really opposed to except for maybe the Italians, Russia may return to the Far East. By 1917, Russia would once again by a Naval power to consider- she would have had 7 Dreadnaughts and 4 Battlecruisers which could tip the balance to Germany or Britain as Russia desired

France would also have gotten to 12 Dreadnaughts making them respectable again. Indeed, the Franco-Russian navy would have been stronger than the German again

How can A-H give the Russians the Straits? The conflict over the Straits seems to have mostly concerned the Entente powers - France, Britain and Russia. A-H has only limited presence in the mediterranean and no real leverage in that conflict. If anyone can "give" the Straits to Russia, it's Britain.

rast said:
Serbia was what today would be called a rogue state. Controlled (?) by a band of murderers, Serbia was a loose cannon, nobody really could predict what would come next.

While I'd certainly agree that 1914 Serbia had some seriously deplorable characteristics, I don't think they were unpredictable. Their nationalism was pretty predictable, and when they were faced with the Austrian Ultimatum in 1914, they very nearly backed down, realizing that a war with a great power would come at a terrible cost. The decision to reject the ultimatum was only made after Russia had made it clear that they would fight a war for Serbia.

LordKalvert · Nov 14, 2014

rast said:
Serbia was what today would be called a rogue state. Controlled (?) by a band of murderers, Serbia was a loose cannon, nobody really could predict what would come next.
The Russians were driven by the narrowing window of taking over the Straits of Istanbul. Once that window had been closed (delivery of the Ottoman men of war built by Britain), they would have gone to a long-term strategy again. So, yes, no Serbian War (and FF didn't want it), and peace might have preserved for at least two more years.

The delivery of the Ottoman men of war is a small matter for the Russians- they had three Black Sea Dreadnaughts building themselves. It would have been at most a temporary change as the Russians also had a massive preponderance of smaller warships The biggest complication for the Russians in the straits had probably become the growth of Bulgaria.

There's no evidence that the Black Sea situation played any role in the calculations that led to World War I.

The Russians definitely felt that time was on their side (and the German and Austrian high commands agreed with them). The recovery from the Japanese War was nearly complete and the completion of the Great program and the railroads would have dramatically improved Russia's military position. Add to that the completion of the 4 Battleships and Battlecruisers building in the Baltic, which would give Russia a measure of flank security

Finally, Austria's position was collapsing in 1914- one of the main reasons she chose war. Her buildup would barely suffice to deal with Serbia let alone the massive improvements in the Russian army. Diplomatically, her ties with Italy and Romania were awful. The death of King Carol in September would have been the end of what little link she still had with Romania- adding her 500,000 men to the list of enemies would have meant that the end of any hope of establishing a defensive line anywhere

They had no real desire or need to start a war and certainly not in 1914

LordKalvert · Nov 14, 2014

Cronos988 said:
How can A-H give the Russians the Straits? The conflict over the Straits seems to have mostly concerned the Entente powers - France, Britain and Russia. A-H has only limited presence in the mediterranean and no real leverage in that conflict. If anyone can "give" the Straits to Russia, it's Britain.

France and Britain had long since stopped caring about the straits. Certainly with the signing of the Russian alliance, France would no longer oppose a Russian seizure of the straits.

As for Britain, Salisbury was explicit in his conversation with the Tsar in 1896: If the others agreed, Britain would no longer maintain her objections "alone". This had really always been the case as Britain really lacked the means to resist Russia at the straits by herself. The hangup for the Russians after that was Austria and to a lesser extent Italy. Italy could always be bought off with Ottoman territory but Austria wanted none. The possibility that FJ would resist and drag things out into a general European war was the last hangup

So if Austria would have agreed to a splitting of the Balkans the Straits were Russian- Again, in the words of Salisbury to his cabinet "If the Russians and the Austrians ever unite in the Balkans, they will carry all before them"

The growth of the mini states after the Balkan Wars complicates this a lot and the prospect of a partition of the Balkans declines dramatically.

However, if we are talking about FJ dying in 1896 rather than 1916, Russia and Austria probably would have split the Balkans and been done with it

rast · Nov 15, 2014

LordKalvert said:
The delivery of the Ottoman men of war is a small matter for the Russians- they had three Black Sea Dreadnaughts building themselves. It would have been at most a temporary change as the Russians also had a massive preponderance of smaller warships The biggest complication for the Russians in the straits had probably become the growth of Bulgaria.

None of the new Russian capital ships would be launched before 1916. That's the two years delay I was referring to.
Now, Russia had almost gone to war over the Liman-von-Sanders Crisis. Their perception was that Berlin - not Vienna - was the prime obstacle on the march to take the straits. For them, 1914 was the ideal year to provoke a war. By 1916, tensions over Persia would have alienated the British again. In 1914, they were dead sure about British support in case of war.

Timmy811 · Nov 15, 2014

LordKalvert said:
Finally, Austria's position was collapsing in 1914

Wasn't Austria's economy undergoing explosive growth in 1914?

De von Of · Nov 15, 2014

Timmy811 said:
Wasn't Austria's economy undergoing explosive growth in 1914?

This is true. Austria had the second fastest growing industry after Russia in the decades before the WW, at some points even the fastest growing one.

In the late twenties/early thirties Austria would have had a larger economy than France.

Halagaz · Nov 15, 2014

rast said:
Serbia was what today would be called a rogue state. Controlled (?) by a band of murderers, Serbia was a loose cannon, nobody really could predict what would come next.

You mean a democratically elected government?

Cronos988 · Nov 15, 2014

LordKalvert said:
France and Britain had long since stopped caring about the straits. Certainly with the signing of the Russian alliance, France would no longer oppose a Russian seizure of the straits.

As for Britain, Salisbury was explicit in his conversation with the Tsar in 1896: If the others agreed, Britain would no longer maintain her objections "alone". This had really always been the case as Britain really lacked the means to resist Russia at the straits by herself. The hangup for the Russians after that was Austria and to a lesser extent Italy. Italy could always be bought off with Ottoman territory but Austria wanted none. The possibility that FJ would resist and drag things out into a general European war was the last hangup

Hmm, no that doesn't match up with what I have read on the period. For Britian in the earls 20th century, it was typical to make non-commital comments which wouldn't antagonize the other side, but also not in any way grant tangible benefits. Salisbury's comments fit that theme exactly, because it was out of the question that everybody would simply agree and I am pretty sure he knew that. Britain was afraid of Russia, they would not have given up a strategic advantage if they could help it.

It is also in no way a given that France no longer has an issue with Russian designs on the Straits because of their alliance, but I agree that France probably was the least of Russia's problems on that front.

LordKalvert said:
So if Austria would have agreed to a splitting of the Balkans the Straits were Russian- Again, in the words of Salisbury to his cabinet "If the Russians and the Austrians ever unite in the Balkans, they will carry all before them"

The growth of the mini states after the Balkan Wars complicates this a lot and the prospect of a partition of the Balkans declines dramatically.

However, if we are talking about FJ dying in 1896 rather than 1916, Russia and Austria probably would have split the Balkans and been done with it

Russia and A-H splitting the Balkans into spheres of influence was definetly possible, but I don't quite see how the death of FJ, specifically, helps?

LordKalvert said:
There's no evidence that the Black Sea situation played any role in the
calculations that led to World War I.

Not directly, no. But there is evidence that immediately before the July 1914 crisis, the prospect of Ottoman Dreadnoughts in the Black Sea deeply concerned Russian policy makers. It is not unreasonable to assume that the willingsness of Russia to escalate the conflict was, in part, caused by the feeling that a strategic window for securing the Straits in the course of a general european war was closing for the forseeable future.

LordKalvert · Nov 15, 2014

Timmy811 said:
Wasn't Austria's economy undergoing explosive growth in 1914?

It may have but that doesn't change its diplomatic position:

Serbia was hostile and had massively expanded as a result of the Ballkan Wars and was doubling the size of its army. Austria's planned increase in her army is able to cope only with that

Romania was drifting into the allied camp and only the aging King Carol was keeping a link with the Triple Alliance. A Serbian Romanian alliance would be able to put 1,000,000 men on Austria's southern border

Italy's faithlessness is well known Much of Austria's limited defense spending was spent against Italy- the fortifications and the fleet drained huge sums from the army

Meanwhile, the Russians kept building up their strength especially the railroads. They meant that Austria would have to deal with Russia alone while Germany attacked France

The only thing that saved Austria in 1914 was that all of her enemies didn't pounce at once. Instead, Italy declares war in 1915 and Romania waits until 1916 after Serbia has been defeated