Im not an economist or an expert and im basing this on a youtube video I saw about the Chinese situation. The problem is that ticket prices for High speed rail cost way more than normal rail tickets and that means in China the vast majority of the lines are operating with a very low percentage of tickets sold and at a massive loss (the raildebt in China is huge). I also seem to remember that even in Japan the only really profitable line was the one connecting Kyoto and Tokyo though I couldnt tell where I have read that. The question seriously needs more and more reliable information than I can provide.
My guess would be a line connecting Vienna, Prague and Budapest could work, maybe Krakow, a high speed Oriental express for sure, and also an addtional line connecting the line to the see (Trieste) and Italy. Some additional stops would be along those lines of course, and maybe 1 or 2 additional line would not bankrupt the empire, but thats the most I think.
Until you get enough roads for automobile travel, or airlines, you have to do rail. There's no other choice in the 1920s, even though it will be not be the best choice long term.
People(along with goods, and mail) have to move between cities, quickly.
Rivers are fine for slow traffic, bulk cargo
So for Rail, you have Locals, that stop at every depot or platform
Next is Limited Stop/Rapid where some platforms are skipped.
then Express, with even fewer stops
Last is Limited Express, when Stops are only at major Terminals, skipping Stations, Platforms and Depots
At this time in the '20s, you need to start worrying about local traffic across grade crossings, controlled crossings have gates, or over/underpasses to prevent collisions, as well as between Train Consists themselves, if on single track line, needed centralized block control
All that takes money, besides the costs of grading the roadbed and laying the track
You can always take inspiration from the French TGV network (warning: 7MB PDF). Interesting varia to note there (with official city populations and urban agglomerations, as France loves small municipalites, which can give a wrong impression of actual city size):
A complete lack of HSR in Normandy,
Nantes (300k population, 600k agg) not (yet?) having a HSR branch (one splitting of in Le Mans from the Paris-Rennes would be ~160km and also serve Angers (150k, 220k agg),
The Paris-Rennes TGV line stops in Le Mans (150k, 220 agg) and Laval (49k, 67k agg), but clearly only because they are on the route anyway,
Toulouse & Nice are also still out of luck, the latter probably got screwed due to mountaineous terrain (makes HSR costs skyrocket), the former likely by its remoteness to other HSR-worthy places and by the direct route to Paris going through the mountaineous and lightly populated (by Western-European standards) Massif Central.
So, with a quick (and thus non-exhaustive) glance at your HSR map:
Innsbruck, Bolzano & Trento are out as HSR is too expensive in the Alps,
Triëste & Klagenfurt probably the same issue,
Minor side branches like the northern Sudenland one are out too as they are not worth the effort.
Basically HSR is expensive, so any destination needs to be worth the effort or already on the line while sufficiently far away from the more important stops. Politics can be in play too, which is why we had (past tense, they did end up realising how stupid it was) a Thalys stopping in Ostend (without separate HSR track on the way) for years here in Belgium, even though pretty much no-one ever took that one. It was 'needed' to compensate Flanders for Wallonia having a stop in Liège (which only exists because the train goes on to Aachen)... Destinations should also not be too close to one another, though again, politics, so the Amsterdam-Brussels-Paris Thalys does stop here in Antwerp(500k though, so not a completely stupid choice), despite the next stop being only 45km further.
IOW, I could see politics leading too several not-too-sensible HSR lines being built to 'compensate' a federation member for what another got, but there are limits, the purse is not bottomless after all.
The railway line was designed under the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the mid-19th century to ensure rapid and safe transport between Tyrol and northern Italy, especially Lombardy–Venetia. It was thus strategically important not only for economic but also for military reasons, as Austria was strongly committed to maintaining its borders south of the Alps.
The first section to be built was the lower section between Verona and Bolzano/Bozen. The design of this section was approved on 10 July 1853 by the engineer Alois Negrelli, an employee of the Südbahn, known for having built other Alpine railway lines and for developing a project of the Suez Canal. The section was opened in two different parts: on 23 March 1859 between Verona to Trento/Trient and 16 May 1859 from Trento/Trient to Bolzano/Bozen. This construction was handled by the k.k. Nord- und SüdTiroler Staatsbahn (German: "North and South Tyrol State Railways"), but the company was taken over by the new Austrian Southern Railway (German: Südbahn) at the beginning of 1859.[3]
Despite the loss of Veneto in the Third Italian War of Independence and its consequent shift of the border between Italy and Austria to Borghetto on the current boundary of Trentino and Verona in October 1866, the upper section from Bolzano/Bozen to Innsbruck was incomplete. The 127-kilometre (79 mi) route from Innsbruck to Bolzano/Bozen took only three years to build. This section had been under construction and was finally opened on 24 August 1867. The main designer and engineer, Karl von Etzel, died in 1865; he was not able to witness the completion of his work. After the Semmering railway, this Brenner Line was the second mountain railway built within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was also the first through line to cross over the Alps.
In 1919, Italy acquired Trentino-South Tyrol under the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye and the Austro-Italian border moved to Brenner. The section from Trento/Trient to Brenner was subsequently electrified at 3,700 V at three-phase 16.7 Hz between 1929 and 1934.[6] Electrification was converted to 3,000 V DC on 30 May 1965.
In preparation for the proposed Brenner Base Tunnel, the Innsbruck bypass was completed in 1994 to improve access to the Lower Inn Valley railway. The bypass consists of a 12.75-kilometre (7.92 mi) tunnel (Austria's longest) and aims to remove the bulk of the freight train traffic from Innsbruck. In Italy, several new sections have been built, removing sections of line with several short tunnels with small cross sections. These include the 13,159-metre-long (43,173 ft) Sciliar tunnel opened in 1994, the 7,267-metre-long (23,842 ft) Pflersch tunnel opened in 1999 and the 3,939-metre-long (12,923 ft) Cardano tunnel opened in 1998.
It would be a prestige thing for the surviving Empire to ensure that line is active, if not a showpiece. Would likely to get planned tunnels, and for doubletrack for freight/passenger use.
Yes, expensive, and may not be worth the expense from an efficiency standpoint, but politics would demand it
The railway line was designed under the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the mid-19th century to ensure rapid and safe transport between Tyrol and northern Italy, especially Lombardy–Venetia. It was thus strategically important not only for economic but also for military reasons, as Austria was strongly committed to maintaining its borders south of the Alps.
The first section to be built was the lower section between Verona and Bolzano/Bozen. The design of this section was approved on 10 July 1853 by the engineer Alois Negrelli, an employee of the Südbahn, known for having built other Alpine railway lines and for developing a project of the Suez Canal. The section was opened in two different parts: on 23 March 1859 between Verona to Trento/Trient and 16 May 1859 from Trento/Trient to Bolzano/Bozen. This construction was handled by the k.k. Nord- und SüdTiroler Staatsbahn (German: "North and South Tyrol State Railways"), but the company was taken over by the new Austrian Southern Railway (German: Südbahn) at the beginning of 1859.[3]
Despite the loss of Veneto in the Third Italian War of Independence and its consequent shift of the border between Italy and Austria to Borghetto on the current boundary of Trentino and Verona in October 1866, the upper section from Bolzano/Bozen to Innsbruck was incomplete. The 127-kilometre (79 mi) route from Innsbruck to Bolzano/Bozen took only three years to build. This section had been under construction and was finally opened on 24 August 1867. The main designer and engineer, Karl von Etzel, died in 1865; he was not able to witness the completion of his work. After the Semmering railway, this Brenner Line was the second mountain railway built within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was also the first through line to cross over the Alps.
In 1919, Italy acquired Trentino-South Tyrol under the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye and the Austro-Italian border moved to Brenner. The section from Trento/Trient to Brenner was subsequently electrified at 3,700 V at three-phase 16.7 Hz between 1929 and 1934.[6] Electrification was converted to 3,000 V DC on 30 May 1965.
In preparation for the proposed Brenner Base Tunnel, the Innsbruck bypass was completed in 1994 to improve access to the Lower Inn Valley railway. The bypass consists of a 12.75-kilometre (7.92 mi) tunnel (Austria's longest) and aims to remove the bulk of the freight train traffic from Innsbruck. In Italy, several new sections have been built, removing sections of line with several short tunnels with small cross sections. These include the 13,159-metre-long (43,173 ft) Sciliar tunnel opened in 1994, the 7,267-metre-long (23,842 ft) Pflersch tunnel opened in 1999 and the 3,939-metre-long (12,923 ft) Cardano tunnel opened in 1998.
It would be a prestige thing for the surviving Empire to ensure that line is active, if not a showpiece. Would likely to get planned tunnels, and for doubletrack for freight/passenger use.
Yes, expensive, and may not be worth the expense from an efficiency standpoint, but politics would demand it
It would be a prestige thing for the surviving Empire to ensure that line is active, if not a showpiece. Would likely to get planned tunnels, and for doubletrack for freight/passenger use.
Yes, expensive, and may not be worth the expense from an efficiency standpoint, but politics would demand it
High speed rail requires special tracks built to very demanding specifications as it has to resist trains going 300+ km/h. Most annoyingly for difficult terrain is that fast trains have a much larger turning circle (unsourced claim for 4km+ turning radii for TGV. For comparison, the Brenner railway wiki linked above has a 264m radius mentioned, also unsourced). A normal rail line connecting Süd-Tirol & Trieste with the rest is no problem (as OTL shows), but 300 km/h HSR is a completely different animal.
2 tunnels currently under construction that cross the Alps, the Brenner Base Tunnel and the Mont d'Ambin Base Tunnel are will be limited to 250km/h & 220 km/h, fast, but not HSR, and at a cost of ~8 billion Euros each for 55-60km.
FTR, I made a small mistake with the linked SNCF map, the double blue lines are TGV-only (actual HSR speeds), but the double purple where one side is notched are mixed and also have TGV service. Le Havre, for instance, does have a TGV connection to Paris. Though at 2h07 for ~180km with one stop on the way, versus 1h22 for Brussels at 300km with no stops, it clearly has no actual HSR track. Same speed as the TER regional express trains it turns out, which makes one wonder why the SNCF is wasting expensive TGV train sets on that route in the first place...
True, but in the timeframe these lines are likely to be started, High speed Rail would be done with streamlined Steam Engines and good roadbed and heavy rail(140 lb/yd (69.4 kg/m) )superelevated curves when needed, gives you 150mph/240 kph anyway
With no WWII in the near future with a surviving Empire working toward Federalization, that's the kind of rail network that would be planned, rather than 1990s goals for HSR
True, but in the timeframe these lines are likely to be started, High speed Rail would be done with streamlined Steam Engines and good roadbed and heavy rail(140 lb/yd (69.4 kg/m) )superelevated curves when needed, gives you 150mph/240 kph anyway
With no WWII in the near future with a surviving Empire working toward Federalization, that's the kind of rail network that would be planned, rather than 1990s goals for HSR
The problem with that is that its not economical. The cost of building, maintaining and operating an HSV line are much higher compared to normal rail lines which results in much higher ticket prices. Now in poorer regions - in the Empire's case this would be Eastern Hungary, Transylvania, Galicia and Bosnia most people simply could not afford to use this in any regular basis. Building a HSV that they cant afford to use is much worse for them than buildinga normal rail lines that they actually can use. HSV's have proven to be great when connecting rich areas and cities - with non too close stops and thats what the Empire should aim for. Maybe one or two additional lines that are not economic are in the cards - but not a whole network of them.
My proposal:
Lines in red would be the economic ones. Practically a line going through the Empire as part of an Orient Express that would terminate at Istanbul while also connecting Vienna and Budapest. The line north would connect Vienna and Prague and ultimately end in Berlin. The 4th being a line to Connect Vienna (and Berlin) to Triest - this one would be very costly to build but I think the Empire would build at least one line to the adriatic.
Blues are maybe's. A line connecting München end Germany to Italy could go throug Innsbruck with a stop there. The problem here is that the terrain would make the building way more expensive. The other one starts from Brno and ends at Krakow. Unlikely to be economic but not that bad and with added politics might be built.
Green are very uneconomic and very unlikely, One is continuation of the line from Krakow to Lemberg. Another is a small branch from the Trieste line to connect Zagreb. Finally the least likely one would be one through eastern Hungary and Transylvania terminating in Bucharest.
The problem with that is that its not economical. The cost of building, maintaining and operating an HSV line are much higher compared to normal rail lines which results in much higher ticket prices. Now in poorer regions - in the Empire's case this would be Eastern Hungary, Transylvania, Galicia and Bosnia most people simply could not afford to use this in any regular basis. Building a HSV that they cant afford to use is much worse for them than buildinga normal rail lines that they actually can use.
On standard tracks, The CB&Q, C&NW and Milwaukee Road all competed for the Twin Cities/Chicago Run, and generally all pulled a 60+mph average speed for that roughly 430 mile trip. before WWII
That may not sound fast, but the Milwaukee Road frequently ran their steamers almost twice that fast to keep on schedule between stops.
CB&Q, that used E5 Diesels, were geared to a max speed of 117mph, on a good run, could do a 78mph average speed.
That's a higher average than what the current Amtrak Acela can do betweem DC and Boston, and that has a 150mph top end. CB&Q was on 90 and 115 pound rail, nothing special
So raw speed doesn't always tell the story.
Also, I think there would also be a line more to the northwest from Trieste, going thru Udine to Klagenfurt.
The Adriatic Ports were seen as one of the Keys for Trade and Tourism
Im not an economist or an expert and im basing this on a youtube video I saw about the Chinese situation. The problem is that ticket prices for High speed rail cost way more than normal rail tickets and that means in China the vast majority of the lines are operating with a very low percentage of tickets sold and at a massive loss (the raildebt in China is huge).
I see, that's certainly something that needs to be considered. However, the population of this ATL Danubia is significantly wealthier than OTL China's, so the more expensive HSR tickets would probably be more affordable to them. Furthermore, Danubia would probably attract way more tourists than OTL China does, especially in relative terms. A good chunk of these tourists would rely on the HSR network, generating extra revenue. The less profitable or unprofitable lines could be propped up by the excess profit of the other lines.
I also seem to remember that even in Japan the only really profitable line was the one connecting Kyoto and Tokyo though I couldnt tell where I have read that.
The prefectures the Tokaido line goes through have a combined population that is almost 40% of the population of the entire country. Using the same method, the second most busy Touhoku line covers only a bit more than half of that, 24% (despite it being about 150km longer). Point is that most of the Japanese (especially the young and working age) population is heavily concentrated in and inbetween the two megapolises, Tokyo and Osaka, and that's why only the Tokaido line might be profitable. In the case of Danubia, that's not quite how things are. Larger and smaller population centres are spread out all across the confederation, so the necessary demand for multiple lines would be there, imo. Alternatively, none of the lines are profitable.
True, but in the timeframe these lines are likely to be started, High speed Rail would be done with streamlined Steam Engines and good roadbed and heavy rail(140 lb/yd (69.4 kg/m) )superelevated curves when needed, gives you 150mph/240 kph anyway
With no WWII in the near future with a surviving Empire working toward Federalization, that's the kind of rail network that would be planned, rather than 1990s goals for HSR
With the advent of mass ownership of cars and the development of air travel, I think the idea of high speed railway networks would be shelved in the '30s-'40s even ITTL. What kickstarts the development of HSR would probably be TTL's equivalent of the first oil shock, decolonisation and the rise of green movements.
The problem with that is that its not economical. The cost of building, maintaining and operating an HSV line are much higher compared to normal rail lines which results in much higher ticket prices. Now in poorer regions - in the Empire's case this would be Eastern Hungary, Transylvania, Galicia and Bosnia most people simply could not afford to use this in any regular basis. Building a HSV that they cant afford to use is much worse for them than buildinga normal rail lines that they actually can use. HSV's have proven to be great when connecting rich areas and cities - with non too close stops and thats what the Empire should aim for. Maybe one or two additional lines that are not economic are in the cards - but not a whole network of them.
Lines in red would be the economic ones. Practically a line going through the Empire as part of an Orient Express that would terminate at Istanbul while also connecting Vienna and Budapest. The line north would connect Vienna and Prague and ultimately end in Berlin. The 4th being a line to Connect Vienna (and Berlin) to Triest - this one would be very costly to build but I think the Empire would build at least one line to the adriatic.
Blues are maybe's. A line connecting München end Germany to Italy could go throug Innsbruck with a stop there. The problem here is that the terrain would make the building way more expensive. The other one starts from Brno and ends at Krakow. Unlikely to be economic but not that bad and with added politics might be built.
Green are very uneconomic and very unlikely, One is continuation of the line from Krakow to Lemberg. Another is a small branch from the Trieste line to connect Zagreb. Finally the least likely one would be one through eastern Hungary and Transylvania terminating in Bucharest.
I think your proposal might be a bit lacking in ambition. Sure, poorer regions in general might find the ticket prices less affordable, but let's not forget that even in such regions, large cities are usually islands of wealth. It would be exactly those cities the HSR would go through.
Taking into account all the suggestions/opinions from the thread, this is the current network I'm considering:
There are some lines I'm not so sure about, like the connection between Trieste and Fiume, or the entire Dalmatian line (albeit I do think it would see heavy use in the Summer), and from what I gathered, any line going through Bosnia would be obscenely expensive. The lines I didn't include but vacillate about are the Lemberg-Czernowitz line, the Budapest-Debrecen-Nagyvárad-Kolozsvár-Brassó line, the Prague-Pilsen-Nürnberg line and finally the Trans-Tyrol line.
What do you think?
Edit: Uh, perhaps a Prague-Budweis-Linz-Graz line would be good too, but that also would be quite expensive...
In the before the advent of airmail and widespread refrigeration, Fast Frieght was a thing for railroads, for moving high value perishable goods like dairy and for mail.
But no sense with moving bulk cargo.
Unless the Tyroleans go full on dwarf, digging deeply and greedily into the mountain, or going for skyscrapers to match their mountains, the population won't grow to that point. There's some growth currently still possible OTL, by densifying, but it's pretty much reached the limits of buildable land. So maybe 170 000 to 190 000 might be possible, but I doubt the 250 000. Unless that is you incorporate neighboring municipalities with their own proud history like Hall. I might look into other numbers again later - but I seem to remember I commented on a couple in the last thread.
Indeed, there are only so many foreign languages the average pupil can learn. And keep in mind that Latin and French were mandatory foreign languages in higher secondary education in much of Europe up until at least the 1960s with English starting to replace French during the third quarter of the 20th century.
While Latin had it's place in classical education, and French is wide spread, OTL Austria didn't quite fit that mold. From the end of WWI up to the Anschluss, and IIRC then again up to the school reforms in the early 60s, Czech was actually the most common foreign language, followed by Italian then French. The Iron Curtain and the US hegemony of course did it's part and after the 60s English was the most common foreign language taught.
So I'd almost expect German-Austrians (the bulk in Upper and Lower Austria and Vienna at least) to learn Czech as their second language, and then maybe Italian or Hungarian as the third?
Unless the Tyroleans go full on dwarf, digging deeply and greedily into the mountain, or going for skyscrapers to match their mountains, the population won't grow to that point. There's some growth currently still possible OTL, by densifying, but it's pretty much reached the limits of buildable land. So maybe 170 000 to 190 000 might be possible, but I doubt the 250 000. Unless that is you incorporate neighboring municipalities with their own proud history like Hall. I might look into other numbers again later - but I seem to remember I commented on a couple in the last thread.
While Latin had it's place in classical education, and French is wide spread, OTL Austria didn't quite fit that mold. From the end of WWI up to the Anschluss, and IIRC then again up to the school reforms in the early 60s, Czech was actually the most common foreign language, followed by Italian then French. The Iron Curtain and the US hegemony of course did it's part and after the 60s English was the most common foreign language taught.
So I'd almost expect German-Austrians (the bulk in Upper and Lower Austria and Vienna at least) to learn Czech as their second language, and then maybe Italian or Hungarian as the third?
But with the Empire surviving, politics come into play, and Czechs are third. If the multiple Kingdom route is taken, and Czechs importance grows, most likely for the language to rise as well, but is not certain. German to be emphasized as before, but 2nd language still Hungarian across the Empire, Hungarians would press for that.
So its a different world than OTL, where much of Austria's Industry went away in 1919, and Austria had to deal with the Czechs as equals.
More seriously, while the official limit in Europe is 250+, any, er, serious, HSR project I am aware of has always used trains capable of 300+ km/h, so any HSR-only track built to 250-300 km/h standards is a bit of a weird investment. You are already doing most of the effort at that point, so better just add the extra funding to make full use of what your HSR trains will be able to do. Otherwise, 'normal' trains can pull 200 km/h these days, so you also need enough of an edge over them for the investment to be worth it.
On that note, I am rather curious now at what point the costs start skyrocketing, like those massive turning circles, are those increasing gradually with speed or is there a point where they start increasing more rapidly? The fact that normal trains stop at ~200 km/h does seem to indicate that this is the point were things become much more difficult, so again, 220 km/h for instance is usually not worth the hassle over 200.
There is an exception however, if 300 is really too expensive for a substretch of the route, like those Alpine tunnels I mentioned above, while most of the route is capable of 300+. So for instance a Trieste-Ljubljana-Graz* line being limited to ~250, even 200 in places, with the Italian part of the Venice extension actually pulling 300 over the flat land of Veneto might be a plausible political/cost compromise that still 'technically' allows for a HSR tag.
*Eh, maaaybe, just zoomed in on Graz on Google Earth, sure, no true mountains coming from the South, but damn that is hilly. And northwards you are rather stuck in a cul-de-sac.
Unless the Tyroleans go full on dwarf, digging deeply and greedily into the mountain, or going for skyscrapers to match their mountains, the population won't grow to that point. There's some growth currently still possible OTL, by densifying, but it's pretty much reached the limits of buildable land. So maybe 170 000 to 190 000 might be possible, but I doubt the 250 000. Unless that is you incorporate neighboring municipalities with their own proud history like Hall.
From what I saw on Google Maps, I figured there's still quite a bit of farmland which could be absorbed into the urban area. That would especially be the case if Rum, Völs' and maybe even Thaur's territories are incorporated into the city. What do you think?
While Latin had it's place in classical education, and French is wide spread, OTL Austria didn't quite fit that mold. From the end of WWI up to the Anschluss, and IIRC then again up to the school reforms in the early 60s, Czech was actually the most common foreign language, followed by Italian then French. The Iron Curtain and the US hegemony of course did it's part and after the 60s English was the most common foreign language taught.
So I'd almost expect German-Austrians (the bulk in Upper and Lower Austria and Vienna at least) to learn Czech as their second language, and then maybe Italian or Hungarian as the third?
I was thinking along those lines as well. A lot would depend on the exact location too, imo. For example, areas between Vienna and Graz might have higher than average amount of German-speaking students trying to learn Hungarian, while Italian would be more popular West from Klagenfurt, Czech would dominate in Upper Austria and in most of Lower Austria, etc.
More seriously, while the official limit in Europe is 250+, any, er, serious, HSR project I am aware of has always used trains capable of 300+ km/h, so any HSR-only track built to 250-300 km/h standards is a bit of a weird investment. You are already doing most of the effort at that point, so better just add the extra funding to make full use of what your HSR trains will be able to do. Otherwise, 'normal' trains can pull 200 km/h these days, so you also need enough of an edge over them for the investment to be worth it.
On that note, I am rather curious now at what point the costs start skyrocketing, like those massive turning circles, are those increasing gradually with speed or is there a point where they start increasing more rapidly? The fact that normal trains stop at ~200 km/h does seem to indicate that this is the point were things become much more difficult, so again, 220 km/h for instance is usually not worth the hassle over 200.
Huh, very interesting. The need to adhere to very strict standards during the production and construction probably greatly contributes to the costs, but maybe the need to purchase private property in the way of the line might also make up a significance portion of the expenses. The faster the train is planned to be, the less choice there is for determining its exact route, making the purchase of more expensive lands less avoidable.
There is an exception however, if 300 is really too expensive for a substretch of the route, like those Alpine tunnels I mentioned above, while most of the route is capable of 300+. So for instance a Trieste-Ljubljana-Graz* line being limited to ~250, even 200 in places, with the Italian part of the Venice extension actually pulling 300 over the flat land of Veneto might be a plausible political/cost compromise that still 'technically' allows for a HSR tag.
Eh, maaaybe, just zoomed in on Graz on Google Earth, sure, no true mountains coming from the South, but damn that is hilly. And northwards you are rather stuck in a cul-de-sac.
The largest hurdle is the area between Graz and Leoben (St. Micheal, rather), but following that it's possible sticking to valleys towards Liezen then to Linz, imo.
instead of political quagmire blocking response, member states pursuing different economic policies to address the crisis would be the more likely issue, imo.
Except that state/regional governments simply could not handle such a crisis on their own. The EU/Article of Confederation model would have been a huge mess because the federal government would have totally lacked the fiscal tools to combat economic crises, while states are totally dependent on federal central bank.
Also, such a weak national government wouldn't have been able to implement industrial policy to develop their economy - which had huge regional disparities in terms of economic development (Austria/Bohemia vs the rest).
And the beefs between certain ethnic groups in A-H were even worse than Flemish-Wallonian thing in Belgium.
If you think Flemish-Wallonian beefs is bad then AH part of the Balkan will be the Florida of Europe with all of it weird, hateful and crazy stuff between Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, Hungarian etc.
So imagine Florida man type of crazy across AH Balkan
If you think Flemish-Wallonian beefs is bad then AH part of the Balkan will be the Florida of Europe with all of it weird, hateful and crazy stuff between Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, Hungarian etc.
So imagine Florida man type of crazy across AH Balkan
Bosnia I would imaginate being quiet similar with Northern Ireland. There might be even their own IRA for Serb population and there being Bosnian Troubles what Danubian (I would imaginate country taking that name) government try to resolve through second half of 20th century.
The Balkans under Austria Hungary weren’t hateful ethnically. There were split loyalties over loyalty to the empire and loyalty to other states and sometimes that lead to murder but never over ethnicity.
.
