AHC: Make Austria-Hungary Survive

No WW1, and there you have it.
Nationalism was and would be a problem, but the internal security organizations, the bureaucracy and the population at large were loyal to Hapsburgs. And none of the nationalists within the Empire really had viable alternatives - for Czechs, Slovaks and Hungarians, breakup with Vienna would lead to domination from either St. Petersburg or Berlin. For Balkan Slavs, Romanians and Italians, their external patron states were too weak to truly threaten the integrity of Empire, and too divided to form an united front.

The way many completely sensible people look to OTL and view the demise of large multiethnic continental empires as inevitable puzzles me.
It took years of industrial war, millions of casualties and complete defeat to disintegrate them - and even still the first instict of many breakaway areas was to look for autonomy under a reformed Empire.
Without a major WW1-level war and a complete defeat in it, Austria-Hungary would remain in existence. Why wouldn't it?
 
No WW1, and there you have it.
Nationalism was and would be a problem, but the internal security organizations, the bureaucracy and the population at large were loyal to Hapsburgs. And none of the nationalists within the Empire really had viable alternatives - for Czechs, Slovaks and Hungarians, breakup with Vienna would lead to domination from either St. Petersburg or Berlin. For Balkan Slavs, Romanians and Italians, their external patron states were too weak to truly threaten the integrity of Empire, and too divided to form an united front.

The way many completely sensible people look to OTL and view the demise of large multiethnic continental empires as inevitable puzzles me.
It took years of industrial war, millions of casualties and complete defeat to disintegrate them - and even still the first instict of many breakaway areas was to look for autonomy under a reformed Empire.
Without a major WW1-level war and a complete defeat in it, Austria-Hungary would remain in existence. Why wouldn't it?

Yeah exactly! Especially since Austria-Hungary had 3 other allies that would not let it fall apart. The Germans and their puppets have the resources, manpower, industry, and client states to support the Habsburgs. Bulgaria and the Ottomans can do the same. Austria-Hungary could only collapse from outside pressure, which doesn't seem too likely because Austria-Hungary would do just fine with its really good economy and trade with the other powers. I mean, considering they'd probably be in the world's top 5 economies, they could build a ton of railroads, and as technology progresses, like better railroads, planes, cars, telegrams, and telephones, multiculturalism doesn't seem like a problem in the future.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Would such liberalism not simply hasten the decline of the Empire? Each ethnic group can now make enemies of each other, not just the Habsburgs.

Sure possibly. Most likely outcome is a slow waning of the strength of the ethnic identity. It does not that a Czech needs to view himself as a German, even thought this would work. You merely need a Czech to also view himself as a 'Habsburgian' or whatever the pan-empire identity would be called. You can look to India for an example of how this works. Or the United States. Or the various tribes that over time came to view themselves as members of the Polan tribe.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Any POD. Post 1900 is preferable. What does it take for the Austro-Hungarian Empire to remain a European power into the 1940's? "European power" defined as at least more powerful than Italy OTL.

Avoid WW1 is best way. Win WW1 quickly (first two years) is second best way. Win war slowly third best way. Look to Italy as an example. Italy did not split back into multiple states despite difference that last til today.
 
How about a federated monarchy A-H with Hungary, Czech, Croatia and Bosnia being the states and other parts under direct Austria rule? Sudetenland Germans would be given to the Germany in exchange for Germany support of A-H annexation of Ruthenia. In other words, the Austrian expansion to the east would be done by divide and rule of ethnicity indifferent to St. Petersburg's governance; then Given British and French muddling but only partial participation but a full one against German, all Balkans powers could benefit from slow disintegration of the Imperial Russia and it would be up to IR to deal with Austria. In other words, Romania would take Odessa and neighboring lands from Ukrainian lands. Polish and Ukraine became two self-governing political entity. Germany would help Latvian, Estonian and Finnish local powers; there even Japan who had recently defeated the Russian years ago would help out like how Mussolini and Hilter for Franco.

However, that would mean a East first diplomacy. Ottoman Empire was about to crumble. While engaging Germany and Austria clandestinely opposed against the IR, the British and French political power would break apart the Ottoman Empire and hence Germany lost the oil. I would think Germany, Austria and Russia would want a very weak but existent Ottoman Empire to stabilize the Middle East for resources and protect their southern rear while Britain, France (Spain, Italy, Scandinavian nations) would want a broken up Middle East -- a divide and [exploit] strategy.
 
The way many completely sensible people look to OTL and view the demise of large multiethnic continental empires as inevitable puzzles me.
It took years of industrial war, millions of casualties and complete defeat to disintegrate them - and even still the first instict of many breakaway areas was to look for autonomy under a reformed Empire.
Without a major WW1-level war and a complete defeat in it, Austria-Hungary would remain in existence. Why wouldn't it?

Look at Yugoslavia in the 90s. No major external war, just tremendous bloodshed for independence. Look at Spain and Catalonia. Even in Italy, the northern half wants independence. Check out the India-Pakistan disagreement. The constant civil wars in the Middle East. Hell, the British Empire. Why? Too many ethnicities, all under one banner.

The United States is a perfect example of what a country of unified ethnicity is capable of. The US is of predominantly white European descent, meaning one civil war and no serious current feelings of independence. We are united religiously and ethnically, if not politically. And we have thus outlasted our multiethnic competitors, the British Empire and the USSR. We will one day be challenged by another unified state, China.
 
The united states is not an example at all. Its built on immigrating foriegn groups then assimilating them. These countries cant really assimilate due to groups being located into a large area with everyone speaking the same language. The us even if not on purpose is a divide everyone and conquer. It would be much different if every dutch german hungarian french etc group settled only in one area
 
The US is the perfect example. 72% of the population is of one ethnicity. Compare that to Austria-Hungary, where, if I remember correctly, not one ethnicity claims above twelve percent.
 
This post IMO says all there is to be said.
If the A-H contracts to a core without Galicia and makes the Czechs (and Croats) happy, then you have 12+10+8+2=32M people (Germans, Hungarians. Czechs and Croats) out of 45M - or three fourths - nailed to the mast flying the Schwarz-Gelb Habsburg flag ...

There were well over 4 million Croats in the territories of the NDH in 1941. I have some doubts that the number of Croats doubled since 1910., so closer to 3 million than 2.
 
Last edited:

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
There were well over 4 million Croats in the territories of the NDH in 1940. I have some doubts that the number of Croats doubled since 1910., so closer to 3 million than 2.
Funny that I initially I did write 3M - but then decided to revise my guess (I did not bother to check) downwards :D
 
Look at Yugoslavia in the 90s. No major external war, just tremendous bloodshed for independence. Look at Spain and Catalonia. Even in Italy, the northern half wants independence. Check out the India-Pakistan disagreement. The constant civil wars in the Middle East. Hell, the British Empire. Why? Too many ethnicities, all under one banner.
The United States is a perfect example of what a country of unified ethnicity is capable of. The US is of predominantly white European descent, meaning one civil war and no serious current feelings of independence. We are united religiously and ethnically, if not politically. And we have thus outlasted our multiethnic competitors, the British Empire and the USSR. We will one day be challenged by another unified state, China.

Yugoslavia was a dictatorship created by sweeping the bloodshed of WW2 under the carpet, and it collapsed as a part of a continent-wide wave of political turmoil and unrest. The Spanish Civil War and Franco era still haunts Catalans. The Indo-Pakistani dispute is a classical postcolonial conflict. The various other European independence movements are active today because we are living in a world where events a century earlier unfolded as they did, as the global wave of decolonization started from the Balkans.
But as they saying goes, the past is indeed a different country, and they do things differently there. Aside from a few angry nationalists (and they were insignificant minorities), no one could contemplate a complete collapse of a dynastic state that had existed in some form or another in Central European politics since 1526. It is true that multiethic empires faced a challenge from the 20th century nationalism. And yet that would have been a mere nuisance, especially for the Hapsburgs, without the Great War.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/589859

As for the US of A: Saying that religious and ethnic unity was the key factor in the geopolitical struggle between the major powers is a gross oversimplification. It's also a bit of a derail to the OP, and I'd thus rather continue this discussion elsewhere than here.
My view is that modern ethnonationalism is very, very much a post-WW1 phenomenon, and an ideology that really marched to the forefront of international politics at Versailles.
 
Alright, couple of things from the old broken Magyar record

- Franz Ferdinand was no liberal (although I haven't seen anyone claiming that yet), and his plans for reforming the Empire were not set in stone.
- Popovici had no official support. Not even from FF. His plans are also... ehhh... not great. It doesn't take into account the political issues of the time, especially over States' Rights (you read that right) and would literally piss off everyone but German supremacists.

However, there are other ideas that came to the forefront, such as the Social Democrats' Personal Principle, which intended to separate the Nation (or ethnicity) from the land, giving the nationalities full autonomy with regards to cultural matters (including taxation to fund cultural and education institutions) without having to piss everyone off by carving up the Empire into ehnic states; an impossibility, I might add, without pissing people off.

The most likely scenario IMO is that Austria-Hungary would federalise among the existing Crownands. The hereditary lands (roughly modern Austria) would be merged and Dalmatia given to Croatia-Slavonia. Here, Bosnia could also be united with the Croats and maybe even include the Slovenes if they want that and have a Southslavic crownland. The crownlands would be elevated to the same level of autonomy as the Hungarian crownland, with the Council of Ministers replaced by a proper, likely bicameral parliament. This means Hungary only has to give up some influence in K.u.K. politics without losing any autonomy.

To satisfy the minorities in the crownlands, the Personal Principle is applied in some form (not necessarily as Otto Bauer imagined it) so that they basically autonomous as well without breaking up the Empire.
 
My view is that modern ethnonationalism is very, very much a post-WW1 phenomenon, and an ideology that really marched to the forefront of international politics at Versailles

What of the unrest in Ottoman lands? How about the Japanese difficulties in Korea, despite years of attempting to make Korea into new Japan (post WWI, I know, but hardly related)? Or, better yet, let's look back further. Take Rome, and all the nationalities under its banner, and how it split into halves and then further, giving us the independent states of France, Italy, and Spain, among others. Look at the Mongol Empire. They all collapsed, primarily from within. You cannot say all of these derived from WWI.
 
Switzerland is doing fine enough. So does Belgium. And Spain too isnt really that bad.
One would argue that those are Western European countries, not Central European.
Besides, Spain and Belgium are rather poor examples on that matter.
I do not see currently any succesful Central European multi-ethnic country (albeit the special case of Switzerland).
 
What of the unrest in Ottoman lands? How about the Japanese difficulties in Korea, despite years of attempting to make Korea into new Japan (post WWI, I know, but hardly related)? Or, better yet, let's look back further. Take Rome, and all the nationalities under its banner, and how it split into halves and then further, giving us the independent states of France, Italy, and Spain, among others. Look at the Mongol Empire. They all collapsed, primarily from within. You cannot say all of these derived from WWI.
Unrest in Ottoman territories was first and foremost religious, and part general malcontent of oppressed subjects vs. taxating central power.
The Korean Samil Movement really gained traction after Wilson’s 14 Points were announced, and the first true revolt happened in 1919.
If you go to ancient Rome to look for signs of modern nationalism, I'm sorry but I see little point of continuing this discussion any further.
 
Get Italy knocked out of the war early somehow or have them not participate at all. Upon Karl's accession, he tried to get the Empire out of the war - the allies weren't interested, though, apparently due to promises to Italy
 
Top