A Better Thought out Sixtus Affair?

[Sarthak]

So it's seems that i have caught the Habsburg bug for i seem to be reading on them too much for my own sake.

Alright, otl, the Sixtus affair was an attempt by Karl I to get peace in March - May 1917. It failed. Utterly. Partly because the foreign minister thought it was good to talk badly about the guy you were negotiating with.

Anyway, these are excerpts from The end of the Habsburg monarchy about the sixtus affair that i find interesting:-

What became known as the ‘Sixtus Affair’ was of importance far less as a result of the peace feelers on which it was founded, than due to the fact of its becoming known and the consequences resulting from it. The contact between Emperor Karl and his wife’s brothers, who were to help raise attempts at taking steps towards peace at a higher level, was accordingly only a sideshow to the attempts at peace that were being made during 1917. As an affair, it belonged to 1918. The key facts and the content of the discussions and correspondence are sufficiently well-known.2146 At the end of January or in mid-February 1917 (here, the information already becomes muddled), the mother of Empress Zita, Maria Antonia von Bourbon-Parma, met with one of her sons (or both), Prince Sixtus von Bourbon-Parma (and Prince Xavier) in Neuchâtel in Switzerland. Both were officers in the Belgian Army. The Archduchess spoke of her son-in-law’s desire for peace, of which Sixtus had already been informed by the boyhood friend of Emperor Karl, Count Tamás Erdödy. However, Sixtus felt that something substantial was needed in order to set a peace initiative in motion. He wrote a list for his mother : Alsace-Lorraine, Belgium, Serbia. The Emperor was to state his position on all three points. Strangely, Italy was left out. Had Sixtus forgotten about it ? With the agreement of Count Czernin, Karl then wrote a letter on 17 March in which he gave his response to all three points, as requested, in very general terms, and also made no mention of Italy. This was no way forward, as the French President Poincaré also told Prince Sixtus. In order to be able to create a more solid foundation, Sixtus and Xavier Bourbon-Parma travelled to Vienna. They met Emperor Karl and probably also Minister Czernin, who subsequently appeared to want to forget the incident.

The next day, Sixtus was also handed a letter from Emperor Karl. (‘Mon chèr Sixte’, written in ink pencil throughout), which was probably written by Karl himself, but was without doubt signed by him. Czernin knew nothing of the letter. In this letter, which was presented as a personal communication, Sixtus was requested to assure the French President that Emperor Karl would ‘support the justified claims for restitution [by France] with regard to Alsace-Lorraine’. This was not entirely what Sixtus had been looking for, since the word ‘justified’ was open to a wide range of possible interpretations, but for the time being it had to suffice.2147 Belgium was to be reinstated and retain its African territories, Serbia was also to be preserved and possibly receive access to the sea. And again, there was no reference to Italy. This subject appears to have been addressed on another sheet of paper. At the end of March, Sixtus forwarded the letter to the French President, Poincaré. Shortly afterwards, on 19 April 1917, talks were held in St. Jean de Maurienne between the French Prime Minister Ribot, the British Prime Minister Lloyd George and the Italian Prime Minister Orlando and his Foreign Minister Sonnino.2148 Lloyd George and Poincaré knew of the Austrian venture, but did not reveal the correspondence of the Austrian Emperor to the Italians. Certainly, however, they were anxious to know whether Italy might lower the demands it had made regarding the price of peace agreed in the Treaty of London. Sonnino replied with a clear ‘no’. This would trigger a revolution in Italy. Did Orlando and Sonnino really know nothing of the fact that the Chief of the Italian General Staff, Cadorna, had indicated to Austria-Hungary just over two weeks previously, at the end of March 1917, that while Italy demanded the cession of Trentino, it was certainly prepared to lower its aspirations overall ? On 12 April, the offer was repeated and specified in Bern by an Italian colonel acting on Cadorna’s behalf : now, all that Italy wanted was Trentino and Aquilea.2149 Cadorna had apparently been acting on the orders of the Italian King. At any rate, no agreement was reached in St. Jean. Even so, Ribot requested that Prince Sixtus again contact Emperor Karl directly. This time, Italy was apparently also discussed.

The visit took place in May. Once again, both brothers came to Vienna. Who then spoke to whom and on what subject, was depicted differently in retrospect, as was the case with the first meeting. Certainly, the Emperor met with his brothers-in-law, but Sixtus also talked to the Foreign Minister. The subject of the discussions was the possibility for concrete peace negotiations. Czernin remained reserved, and finally issued only a typewritten note in which he rejected a unilateral relinquishment of territory by Austria-Hungary in the name of the Imperial and Royal government, and demanded guarantees for the integrity of the Danube Monarchy if a peace were to be concluded. However, the previous events were destined to repeat themselves. On the following day, the princes again met with the Austrian Emperor, and Karl again gave them a letter in which he ascertained that France and England clearly shared his views regarding the basis for a European peace. And when it came to Italy, the demands would have to be re-examined. The Parma princes travelled to France via Switzerland, and Sixtus again met Poincaré and Ribot, but their willingness to continue the contact had stalled.

They had clearly only been interested in finding out how far the Austrian Emperor was prepared to go. In London, where Sixtus also spoke to King George V, the desire to take the matter forward was in general greater, but it was clearly felt that there was no opportunity to do so in light of the position disclosed by Sonnino and the hesitation of the French. The contact then petered out. This was perhaps not because Emperor Karl would not have been willing to continue pursuing it, but rather because the French and British were unable to persuade the Italians with their desire to enter concrete discussions and negotiations. However, only very few people were informed about the first and second letters issued by Emperor Karl, and they chose to remain silent. It was not until almost a year later, after Brest-Litovsk and the failure of all attempts at concluding a peace in the west, and against the background of a situation in which the Imperial and Royal Foreign Minister in particular found it necessary to express a particular degree of compliance towards the German Empire and an increase in loyalty to the alliance,2150 that this brief incident was turned into a scandal. Following the relocation of troops from the east to the western front, the German Empire appeared to want to force a decisive military victory there, too. On 21 March 1918, the battle began in France that was known as ‘Operation Michael’. In this re-gard, Czernin had promoted not only the relocation of Austro-Hungarian troops to the western front, but also support for the German offensive by a renewed attack by Imperial and Royal troops in Italy, so that the Allies would be unable to easily remove their forces there in order to send them to France. Czernin did still more. He initiated a newspaper campaign against the Meinl Group and, above all, against Lammasch, in order to discredit this group, which was a source of trouble to him and to Berlin in equal measure. Finally, he threatened the Emperor with his resignation if Karl were to decide to pursue his peace contacts, while not making use of his minister.2151 Karl had indeed tried again to begin talks with the Americans, and had turned to Heinrich Lammasch for the purpose. Lammasch did what was requested of him and established the required contact. Indeed, President Wilson also reacted by making a conciliatory interpretation of his Fourteen Points, and of Point Ten in particular. Wilson was all the happier to do this, since he had been forced to acknowledge that, aside from Austria-Hungary, none of the belligerents had reacted particularly positively to his declaration of 8 January 1918. And so, the American President arranged for Austria-Hungary to also be granted extensive financial aid from the USA if a separate peace were to be concluded.2152 However, since he had not been informed of the background, Czernin could not agree with the American statements that were published. After quickly noticing that Lammasch was behind this development, he disavowed the international law expert to the Emperor. Karl was unwilling to admit his own role, and in an unseemly way had Lammasch dropped.

So......what if Karl I and Lammach and Sixtus negotiated on more even terms? What if Cadorna's message about the Italian ability to only gain Trentino and Aquilea was properly given to the Italian government? And Karl I agreed to give up Trentino and Aquilea whilst paying reparations to France, Britain and Italy? It is interesting to note that Wilson was willing to give Austria-Hungary financial aid if the affair was successful. Let's say that Austria-Hungary and the Allies agree to peace by June 1917 under the following terms:-

1. The A-H recognition of the fact that Alsace-Lorraine were rightfully French territories.
2. A-H to cede Trentino and Aquilea to Italy.
3. A-H to pay reparations to the allied powers.
4. A-H to withdraw all troops on foreign soil back into A-H soil.
5. The economic and naval blockade of A-H to be lifted by the allied powers under the clause of A-H declaring an embargo on Germany.

Lammach otl actually did manage to outmaneuver the germans who basically controlled Austria-Hungary after 1916 and was in prime position to hammer out a peace deal if Karl I had not wavered and the foreign minister had not been volatile. Let say Karl I does not waver and the foreign minister has a fever and cannot go into the vitriol that he did otl and ends up hospitalized for a few weeks stuck on to desk duty.

 

[Sarthak]

to add on to this, how would a peaced out Austria affect the war in general and the Russian Civil War?

 

[Sarthak]

calling all A-H experts here, @SealTheRealDeal , @Fehérvári

 

[Othala]

Okay, few thoughts.

What exactly do you mean by Aquilea? Because I don't think that one had been used as a organisational unit for a long time by that point? County of Gorcia maybe? Or the whole of Littoral/Küstenland? Depending on who negotiates on the Italian side they can be pretty unreasonable. I don't know the personalities enough to make a real judgment. You might get one of the later "Mutilated Victory" faction, who will be against that deal. You might get one more reasonable and it might get through. Either way there will be factions in Austria who will be just as outraged as the Italian Irredentists.

After the peace Austria will be in turmoil. War debt will have to be repaid, all manor of factions want "their" piece of a probably nearly non existent peace dividend. Everyone will look for someone to blame for the whole situation. Depending on how high and how soon reparations are to be paid, expect full on revolts. If it's anywhere near the size of the OTL Versailles treaty, just forget it right now. If it's more reasonable - say the size of the French reparations after the Franco-Prussian war - yeah, that might work.
Maybe if you include a delay on payment or a symbolic repayment for the first five years? With a set, longer than 25 year payment period from the onset? Then it can be higher. Or if the Entente accepts payment counted against AH property in the Territory annexed by Italy. Though in that case the Italians might protest, since it will minimise their monetary reward. Maybe there can be payment in ships, since the AH fleet is still pretty intact by 1917 IIRC. If that can be a good chunk you might get away with it as well.

Germany will not be happy. Not at all. Good chance that the ATL equivalent of the Stab in the Back Myth explicitly goes against AH.

Russian civil war? Not sure how much influence. Though it all depends on details. An ATL Poland will likely be weaker, so a Polish-Russian War might go worse for Poland. Part of the reparation payments of Austria might be in weapons, supplied directly to White Russians. In a supreme bit of irony, if someone is a quick thinker, they might decide that the Czechoslovak Legion serving in Russia might count to the reparations, causing more problems in the long term. Though honestly, I just don't know enough about the Russian Civil War to fully judge.

 

[Sarthak]

What exactly do you mean by Aquilea? Because I don't think that one had been used as a organisational unit for a long time by that point? County of Gorcia maybe? Or the whole of Littoral/Küstenland? Depending on who negotiates on the Italian side they can be pretty unreasonable. I don't know the personalities enough to make a real judgment. You might get one of the later "Mutilated Victory" faction, who will be against that deal. You might get one more reasonable and it might get through. Either way there will be factions in Austria who will be just as outraged as the Italian Irredentists.

by aquilea cadorna meant gorizia and the isonzo regions just shy of trieste i believe according to the book.

After the peace Austria will be in turmoil. War debt will have to be repaid, all manor of factions want "their" piece of a probably nearly non existent peace dividend. Everyone will look for someone to blame for the whole situation. Depending on how high and how soon reparations are to be paid, expect full on revolts. If it's anywhere near the size of the OTL Versailles treaty, just forget it right now. If it's more reasonable - say the size of the French reparations after the Franco-Prussian war - yeah, that might work.

lloyd george and clemenceau did assert that only medium scale reparations would be taken while italy was demanding higher reparations. While the reparations may be high i doubt it would come to versailles level, compiled with the fact Wilson was ready to finance and loan A-H had the affair been successful

Maybe if you include a delay on payment or a symbolic repayment for the first five years? With a set, longer than 25 year payment period from the onset? Then it can be higher. Or if the Entente accepts payment counted against AH property in the Territory annexed by Italy. Though in that case the Italians might protest, since it will minimise their monetary reward. Maybe there can be payment in ships, since the AH fleet is still pretty intact by 1917 IIRC. If that can be a good chunk you might get away with it as well.

one of the major topics was about the navy. Sossino did ask for a third of the A-H's screening fleet to be handed over to italy so yes the italian reparations could be done in ships.

Germany will not be happy. Not at all. Good chance that the ATL equivalent of the Stab in the Back Myth explicitly goes against AH.

yeah most probably.

Russian civil war? Not sure how much influence. Though it all depends on details. An ATL Poland will likely be weaker, so a Polish-Russian War might go worse for Poland. Part of the reparation payments of Austria might be in weapons, supplied directly to White Russians. In a supreme bit of irony, if someone is a quick thinker, they might decide that the Czechoslovak Legion serving in Russia might count to the reparations, causing more problems in the long term. Though honestly, I just don't know enough about the Russian Civil War to fully judge.

hm, could be.

 

[Maperseguir]

Interesting, this is not quite what I remember reading in Fetjö about the failure of the 1917 talks. According to him, the twin sticking points were Clemenceau's insistence on carrying on the war until the downfall of Germany and Austrian reluctance to openly betray their german ally. Since Paris would accept nothing short of a total German defeat and Vienna was unwilling to throw Berlin overboard, no agreement could be reached.

Now if I understand, Fetjö tends to overplay the importance of french decisions and downplay the role of the Italians. However, I still believe that two questions remain. First, it is obvious enough that Clemenceau was never seriously interested in the Austrian openings - this was more of a Ribot/Briand thing. Second, the Austrians were reluctant to taking the kind of dramatic gesture (openly betraying Germany) that would have turned Entente lukewarmness or indifference into real interest.

Even if we find a way to avoid or delay a Clemenceau premiership, which would come with its own butterflies, I still believe some decisive gesture on Vienna's part would be necessary to convince Paris of the interest of signing peace with Austria: after all, not only did the Isonzo front tie down some german reserves, but the Salonique front in the Balkans was France's developping into an opportunity to threaten Germany's southern flank - so strategically I doubt France would have seen much interest in letting the Austrian off the hook, bar Vienna actually offering to switch sides. Would the offer of a bit more land in Italy convince France ?...

 

[lukedalton]

Interesting, this is not quite what I remember reading in Fetjö about the failure of the 1917 talks. According to him, the twin sticking points were Clemenceau's insistence on carrying on the war until the downfall of Germany and Austrian reluctance to openly betray their german ally. Since Paris would accept nothing short of a total German defeat and Vienna was unwilling to throw Berlin overboard, no agreement could be reached.

Now if I understand, Fetjö tends to overplay the importance of french decisions and downplay the role of the Italians. However, I still believe that two questions remain. First, it is obvious enough that Clemenceau was never seriously interested in the Austrian openings - this was more of a Ribot/Briand thing. Second, the Austrians were reluctant to taking the kind of dramatic gesture (openly betraying Germany) that would have turned Entente lukewarmness or indifference into real interest.

Even if we find a way to avoid or delay a Clemenceau premiership, which would come with its own butterflies, I still believe some decisive gesture on Vienna's part would be necessary to convince Paris of the interest of signing peace with Austria: after all, not only did the Isonzo front tie down some german reserves, but the Salonique front in the Balkans was France's developping into an opportunity to threaten Germany's southern flank - so strategically I doubt France would have seen much interest in letting the Austrian off the hook, bar Vienna actually offering to switch sides. Would the offer of a bit more land in Italy convince France ?...

The problem is that Clemenceau has all the reason to not really take seriously the A-H proposal; basically Karl is very generous with things that don't belong to him and also want to have his cake and eat it by not switching side or at least give the ok to entente troops to use his territory to attack Germany. The fact that will not even consider give Italy some land will also cause a serious diplomatic problem in the alliance once the offer is accepted, plus Karl reign was not considered solid.

 

[Sarthak]

Interesting, this is not quite what I remember reading in Fetjö about the failure of the 1917 talks. According to him, the twin sticking points were Clemenceau's insistence on carrying on the war until the downfall of Germany and Austrian reluctance to openly betray their german ally. Since Paris would accept nothing short of a total German defeat and Vienna was unwilling to throw Berlin overboard, no agreement could be reached.

Actually, the fall of the Habsburg Monarchy mentions something about Clemenceau stressing the point about the defeat of Germany to force Austria into making a quick decision regarding the talks. His diary calls it a bluff or something apparently. And yes, on your latter point, it was Karl I's reluctance to betray Germany that led to Lammach not being able to hammer a treaty through, and probably gain monetary aid from the USA.

Now if I understand, Fetjö tends to overplay the importance of french decisions and downplay the role of the Italians. However, I still believe that two questions remain. First, it is obvious enough that Clemenceau was never seriously interested in the Austrian openings - this was more of a Ribot/Briand thing. Second, the Austrians were reluctant to taking the kind of dramatic gesture (openly betraying Germany) that would have turned Entente lukewarmness or indifference into real interest.

Clemenceau was actually very interested. He told Ribot to dedicate all his resources into the negotations as he could. Though yes, i again agree that the Austrians (Karl I and the foreign minister) were reluctant to look like backstabbers.

Even if we find a way to avoid or delay a Clemenceau premiership, which would come with its own butterflies, I still believe some decisive gesture on Vienna's part would be necessary to convince Paris of the interest of signing peace with Austria: after all, not only did the Isonzo front tie down some german reserves, but the Salonique front in the Balkans was France's developping into an opportunity to threaten Germany's southern flank - so strategically I doubt France would have seen much interest in letting the Austrian off the hook, bar Vienna actually offering to switch sides. Would the offer of a bit more land in Italy convince France ?...

Actually the Italian front held down around 7 Entente divisions and 5 German divisions. France and Britain would gain more by pulling the troops to the western front and having to stop their economic aid to Italy. Ribot called it a beneficial plan actually.

The problem is that Clemenceau has all the reason to not really take seriously the A-H proposal; basically Karl is very generous with things that don't belong to him and also want to have his cake and eat it by not switching side or at least give the ok to entente troops to use his territory to attack Germany. The fact that will not even consider give Italy some land will also cause a serious diplomatic problem in the alliance once the offer is accepted, plus Karl reign was not considered solid.

. Would the offer of a bit more land in Italy convince France ?...

Lammach and Karl I actually told the Italian delegation, to which Victor Emmanuel agreed to, that Italy would be able to get Trentino, all of Gorizia and Aquilea, except Trieste. Apparently Lammach was on the verge of persuading the emperor Karl I to give up trieste as well, before the foreign minister blew the entire thing in mid 1917. So let's say that Trentino, Aquilea and Trieste is offered to Italy, and this by the way, was more than the land that the Italian government asked during the delegation. (They only asked for gorizia). Presumably the other points will be like otl:

1. A withdrawal from the war.
2. Embargo on Germany.
3. Handing over 1/3 of the navy to Italy
4. Withdrawing from Serbia and Montenegro

@Maperseguir what do you think will be the overall effects of the sixtus affair succeeding, in this matter at least?

 

[Merrick]

The big problem in making this one fly is:
- France isn't interested in a peace that doesn't get them Alsace-Lorraine
- Karl can't give Alsace-Lorraine to the French
- Austria-Hungary withdrawing from the war doesn't weaken the German position very much, as now they can withdraw their troops from the south and have one less front to worry about.

But let's suppose that in mid-1917 Karl offers the Italians a separate peace with enough land attached that Italians decide to take their winnings and go home. The French will be furious, but if the Italians are determined to drop out, they may as well take the peace and remove Austria from the Central Powers. The British shrug their shoulders. The Serbs get their country back, which is as much as they can hope for in the short term. The Salonika Army is directed against Bulgaria and the Turks.

The Germans will be screaming betrayal. How many German units were there in Austria at the time? Enough for a German-backed coup by the war party to have a shot at success?

If it's mid-1917, Russia is still in the war. Presumably the Austrians evacuate Romania and there's a ceasefire and return to pre-war borders in Galicia? Any German units in Romania are going to be completely out on a limb. The Russians get to move forces north to face the Germans in Poland, assuming they still have the organization and logistics to do so.

Militarily, losing the Austrian deadweight has probably made the Germans' lives easier, at least in the short term. I'd expect an all-out offensive in Livonia, using troops returned from the South, to try and push the Russians over the edge. (This may be harder than OTL - victory over Austria will be a big morale boost in Petrograd). If that works, a big 1918 offensive in the West in a last push to win before the economy folds and the Americans arrive. If it doesn't , the war is clearly lost, and the October Revolution may never happen.

Politically, it's a disaster. Germany no longer has an alliance, and if the Austrians are evacuating Serbia and paying reparations, what are they fighting this war for anyway? I can see an earlier German Revolution, if the offensives fail.

Back to Austria, some sort of revolution or uprising seems pretty certain. The army is demoralised, the economy has collapsed, the people are hungry and there's no way to spin the peace as anything but a defeat. No idea whether this would be something like the 1905 revolution in Russia, nationalist centrifuging, Bolshevism spreading across the border or all three at once. I suspect Karl and his government will be struggling to keep control even in the core territories, let alone places like Bosnia and Galicia. OTOH, if he can hold on for a couple of years, he may get propped up by the Entente powers as a bulwark against the Reds.

Germany will not be happy. Not at all. Good chance that the ATL equivalent of the Stab in the Back Myth explicitly goes against AH.

Not to mention the Bulgarians and Ottomans, who have been completely hung out to dry.
And if Austria-Hungary manages to survive the post-war, I'd expect the Serbs and Romanians to come up with their own stab-in-the-back mythlets about how if the [deleted] Italians and French hadn't sold them out to Vienna, they'd have regained their rightful territories in Bosnia and Transylvania

 

[Sarthak]

- France isn't interested in a peace that doesn't get them Alsace-Lorraine
- Karl can't give Alsace-Lorraine to the French

True enough, however diplomatic recognition of Alsace-Lorraine as French by the Austrians is still a big scoring point for Paris, as they insisted on it with London and St. Petersburg during the early war negotiations. It gives more credence to the political side of the French war campaign.

- Austria-Hungary withdrawing from the war doesn't weaken the German position very much, as now they can withdraw their troops from the south and have one less front to worry about.

Actually, Austria-Hungary embargoing Germany as per the Sixtus negotiations otl would mean that Germany would lose over 20% of her oil supply, 1/3 of their electronic supplies and around 1/5 of their total natural resources. As well as the fact that 2 entire Russian armies have been freed up, as well as 200,000 Anglo-French troops in Salonika. Austria-Hungary may have been a military deadweight in the war, but economically, they pulled their own weight.

The Germans will be screaming betrayal. How many German units were there in Austria at the time? Enough for a German-backed coup by the war party to have a shot at success?

I believe 8 divisions were present in Austria (5 in Italian front and around 2 near Romania, and 1 in Serbia i believe)

Militarily, losing the Austrian deadweight has probably made the Germans' lives easier, at least in the short term. I'd expect an all-out offensive in Livonia, using troops returned from the South, to try and push the Russians over the edge. (This may be harder than OTL - victory over Austria will be a big morale boost in Petrograd). If that works, a big 1918 offensive in the West in a last push to win before the economy folds and the Americans arrive. If it doesn't , the war is clearly lost, and the October Revolution may never happen.

some of Russia's supply problems will evaporate if since they will be free to trade with Austria-Hungary and use the A-H ports in Croatia. And 2 armies have been freed up, so Russia will get a good amount of breather as well.

Back to Austria, some sort of revolution or uprising seems pretty certain. The army is demoralised, the economy has collapsed, the people are hungry and there's no way to spin the peace as anything but a defeat. No idea whether this would be something like the 1905 revolution in Russia, nationalist centrifuging, Bolshevism spreading across the border or all three at once. I suspect Karl and his government will be struggling to keep control even in the core territories, let alone places like Bosnia and Galicia. OTOH, if he can hold on for a couple of years, he may get propped up by the Entente powers as a bulwark against the Reds.

problem (or actually breather) is that Karl I and the Austrian government knew that a separate peace would result in internal crisis and were moving to pre-empt it during the negotiations. Groundworks for returning to a civilian economy were laid down, electoral reforms were drawn up, new general election dates were being fixed, nationalization was planned to be cut down, and constitutional amendments in favor of democratic ideals (well, most of them apparently) were being drawn up. The unrest and uprising if it happens would resemble a more sane and subdued 1905 Revolution.

Bosnia and Galicia

small nitpick here, Galicia and Bosnia were very loyal to the Austrian Empire. Galician Poles were fighting for a separate Galician state with guerilla warfare even during the Polish-Soviet War, with the intention of making one of the Austrian archdukes king.

Not to mention the Bulgarians and Ottomans, who have been completely hung out to dry.
And if Austria-Hungary manages to survive the post-war, I'd expect the Serbs and Romanians to come up with their own stab-in-the-back mythlets about how if the [deleted] Italians and French hadn't sold them out to Vienna, they'd have regained their rightful territories in Bosnia and Transylvania

yup, i think this is most likely.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

It almost sounds like a decent PoD would be getting rid of the foreign minister somehow. Have him have an accident, or do a cabinet shuffle or....

It WOULD be interesting to see if Wilson could do better at getting that financial support through Congress than OTL getting his League of Nations through...

 

[Merrick]

Actually, Austria-Hungary embargoing Germany as per the Sixtus negotiations otl would mean that Germany would lose over 20% of her oil supply, 1/3 of their electronic supplies and around 1/5 of their total natural resources.

That assumes that embargo will be immediate and enforced. Given the length of the border, that most of the districts on the Austrian side are ethnically German and that the local officials will have other things on their minds, I'd expect initial enforcement to be patchy. There'd be a block on military stores, overseas goods destined for Germany and maybe some big-ticket items like oil, but I doubt there'd be much effort to stop small-scale traders crossing the border.

I believe 8 divisions were present in Austria (5 in Italian front and around 2 near Romania, and 1 in Serbia i believe)

Probably not enough then. Any anti-treaty coup would need to seize Vienna.

some of Russia's supply problems will evaporate if since they will be free to trade with Austria-Hungary and use the A-H ports in Croatia. And 2 armies have been freed up, so Russia will get a good amount of breather as well.

I suspect that setting up any sort of supply line across the width of a disorganised Austria-Hungary will take more time than the Russians have, especially if Trieste is now under Italian management. Freeing up the troops will be the big thing.

problem (or actually breather) is that Karl I and the Austrian government knew that a separate peace would result in internal crisis and were moving to pre-empt it during the negotiations. Groundworks for returning to a civilian economy were laid down, electoral reforms were drawn up, new general election dates were being fixed, nationalization was planned to be cut down, and constitutional amendments in favor of democratic ideals (well, most of them apparently) were being drawn up.

That sounds good in theory, but in practice such concessions have a bad record of being too little/too late when they are finally implemented.
And what will the Imperial government do after the election if (say) the Czech nationalists sweep Bohemia or the Socialists emerge as the largest party in parliament?

 

[marathag]

And what will the Imperial government do after the election if (say) the Czech nationalists sweep Bohemia or the Socialists emerge as the largest party in parliament?

They get used to being outvoted, with Poles the deciding votes in the Reichsrat(the Western half of A-H, the Cisleithanian Legislature), and the Social Democrats(already largest Party) would be glad of War's end and see that a one of their goals, a Federalized democratic State, was at hand, though with the Monarchy around. If Karl backs Workers reforms, he's Gold.
Areas of German Majorities of Bohemia and Moravia

Hungarians would be a real problem, but would agree to stomp them flat, if the Czechs decide on Civil War

 

[Wendell]

Austria-Hungary signing that deal is suicide.

 

[Sarthak]

That assumes that embargo will be immediate and enforced. Given the length of the border, that most of the districts on the Austrian side are ethnically German and that the local officials will have other things on their minds, I'd expect initial enforcement to be patchy. There'd be a block on military stores, overseas goods destined for Germany and maybe some big-ticket items like oil, but I doubt there'd be much effort to stop small-scale traders crossing the border.

Actually as per the agreement, the embargo would be overseen by France, Russia and Britain, so most probably it would be enforced. And even if it isn''t, without a war, the Germans would have to buy A-H goods instead of getting it for free, which would itself create a massive impact.

Probably not enough then. Any anti-treaty coup would need to seize Vienna.

All the 8 divisions were surrounded by 7 million A-H troops. An anti-treaty coup would not be happening, even discounting the 200,000 gendamerie near Vienna.

I suspect that setting up any sort of supply line across the width of a disorganised Austria-Hungary will take more time than the Russians have, especially if Trieste is now under Italian management. Freeing up the troops will be the big thing.

Actually the A-H had a very modern railway system connecting Krakow and Croatia. Supplies would be pretty easy to supply, even if takes a bit of time. Though yes, the freeing up of armies (some 500,000 to 700,000 men) would be the bigger advantage for Russia.

That sounds good in theory, but in practice such concessions have a bad record of being too little/too late when they are finally implemented.
And what will the Imperial government do after the election if (say) the Czech nationalists sweep Bohemia or the Socialists emerge as the largest party in parliament?

There were no Czech nationalistic parties in the A-H. Autonomists and Regionalists only. There were no Czech nationalistic parties in the A-H until early 1918. In 1917 none existed. Neither were there socialists. All A-H socialists had accepted the A-H authority (most of them anyway) and had joined the SPD. Renner was famously a leftist and near-socialist but remained social democrat in political theory within the A-H.

 

[Sarthak]

Austria-Hungary signing that deal is suicide.

it is far better than st. germain and the situation is wayy more stable than otl late 1918 for the A-H.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

calling all A-H experts here, @SealTheRealDeal , @Fehérvári

Sorry, you pinged me while I was gone fishing.

Anyways, would an Isonzo boarder satisfy "Aquilea"? Keeping a natural barrier between Italy and Triest and the Ljubljana Gap would be a high priority for Vienna.

 

[Othala]

All the 8 divisions were surrounded by 7 million A-H troops. An anti-treaty coup would not be happening, even discounting the 200,000 gendamerie near Vienna.

I probably shouldn't comment without reading up on that topic again. And I never looked into their exact status during the war. But k.u.k. Gendarmarie were part of the Ministry of War, not interior or justice. They were nasty customers, since they were built up to counter among other things another 1848-est revolution. There was IIRC a police force beyond that, at least in Vienna.
Thought to be honest, they weren't quite as militarised as they would become after the monarchy. 1930s Vienna police had several modern armoured cars and artillery.

Actually the A-H had a very modern railway system connecting Krakow and Croatia. Supplies would be pretty easy to supply, even if takes a bit of time. Though yes, the freeing up of armies (some 500,000 to 700,000 men) would be the bigger advantage for Russia.

A rail system that had run flat out since 1914 without the necessary maintenance on rolling stock or rails. With a return to peace time conditions, expect interruptions there. On the other hand Nordbahn ran not just to Krakow, but Lemberg and Czernowitz with branching lines from there.

There were no Czech nationalistic parties in the A-H. Autonomists and Regionalists only. There were no Czech nationalistic parties in the A-H until early 1918. In 1917 none existed. Neither were there socialists. All A-H socialists had accepted the A-H authority (most of them anyway) and had joined the SPD. Renner was famously a leftist and near-socialist but remained social democrat in political theory within the A-H.

One should not forget that Czech history as taught today was mostly written by former exiles after 1919, be they those working against A-H from Paris on a political level, or the Czechoslovak Legions fighting with arms. (That is not to mention that there weren't 'Bohemian' politicians in Vienna that weren't advocating for an independent Czechoslovakia, but they had several people in their ranks who were rife for quote mining, and would have certainly presented themselves just the other way around in a different 1919 where A-H survived. I heard a talk by a guy working with protocols from the Reichrat once, it was enlightening in that aspect)

Renner was an odd one, but very successful in creating a unified Social Democrat Party. However by 1917 the cracks were already showing and I'm not certain how long he could have kept it together.

 

[Sarthak]

Sorry, you pinged me while I was gone fishing.

Anyways, would an Isonzo boarder satisfy "Aquilea"? Keeping a natural barrier between Italy and Triest and the Ljubljana Gap would be a high priority for Vienna.

i do believe that is what Karl initially wanted

 

[Sarthak]

I probably shouldn't comment without reading up on that topic again. And I never looked into their exact status during the war. But k.u.k. Gendarmarie were part of the Ministry of War, not interior or justice. They were nasty customers, since they were built up to counter among other things another 1848-est revolution. There was IIRC a police force beyond that, at least in Vienna.
Thought to be honest, they weren't quite as militarised as they would become after the monarchy. 1930s Vienna police had several modern armoured cars and artillery.

probably, however they were still good backups to the military when needed.

A rail system that had run flat out since 1914 without the necessary maintenance on rolling stock or rails. With a return to peace time conditions, expect interruptions there. On the other hand Nordbahn ran not just to Krakow, but Lemberg and Czernowitz with branching lines from there.

true enough

One should not forget that Czech history as taught today was mostly written by former exiles after 1919, be they those working against A-H from Paris on a political level, or the Czechoslovak Legions fighting with arms. (That is not to mention that there weren't 'Bohemian' politicians in Vienna that weren't advocating for an independent Czechoslovakia, but they had several people in their ranks who were rife for quote mining, and would have certainly presented themselves just the other way around in a different 1919 where A-H survived. I heard a talk by a guy working with protocols from the Reichrat once, it was enlightening in that aspect)

yeah more or less. The Czech state hated the habsburgs throughout the 1920s and 30s even with Benes saying in 1936 better hitler than habsburg. Historical revisionism was used in amplitude in the new independent countries after ww1.

Renner was an odd one, but very successful in creating a unified Social Democrat Party. However by 1917 the cracks were already showing and I'm not certain how long he could have kept it together.

he is odd. The founder of red vienna, yet a social democrat.