Austrian Colonialism and Race

OTL it took 4 years of total war, starvation, horrible defeats and millions of deaths added with incredible level of mismanagment of the populace by the state and especially the army to destroy Austria 2 years after FJ's death. For a fossil it proved quit resilient. I acknowledge that if it was a nation state it would have survived even this. But it took a lot to destroy it and you cant really get more nationalistic than at that time.

That is not that surprising. The military was one of the few remaining unifying institutions left. They could fight a war, just not (very) effectively.
It did not solve the main problem, how to address growing national demands.
 
I say it depends where the colony is, their history with it, and what it produces. I expect a lot of consideration will be given to how iteffects the Austrian Empire at home. At to be clear are we talking about the Austrian Empire or Austria-Hungary? Bound to be quite a lot of differences, politics wise. I do wonder if the Austrians managing to reach through Bosnia and Sandjak into Macedonia and to the Aegean would have had an effect. Probably a bit out of the way for shipping, of course.
 
Eduard Ferdinand Freiherr von Callot (1792 to 1855) - k.k. and later Egyptian officer - propagated the establishment of an Austrian colony on the Red Sea and in eastern Sudan. This is related in the period of time to the colonial ideas of Finance Minister Karl von Bruck, which he developed in 1857 with the support of national economist Lorenz von Stein and explorer Karl von Scherzer.

At that time, people were thinking primarily in the direction of the Pacific: New Guinea was to become the centre of the Austrian colonial possessions to be acquired. A chain of bases was to secure the sea route to East Asia (through the Suez Canal, in the planning of which Austria played a leading role). Trade and naval bases were planned in the Horn of Africa (for example the acquisition of a port near Massaua, today Mitsiwa in Eritrea) as well as a place for deportations. Bruck found a supporter above all in the young Archduke Ferdinand Max, later Emperor Maximilian of Mexico, then Commander of the Navy and Governor General of Lombardy, who himself had already visited Egypt in 1855. In 1857/58, the liner lieutenant Wilhelm von Tegetthoff, the later admiral - successful at Lissa in 1866 - actually explored the Red Sea and the island of Sokotra.

However, these plans did not last very long. The k.k. did undertake a number of projects. Frigate "Novara" from 1857 to 1859 undertook its famous voyage around the world (for which a new occupation of the Nicobar Islands as well as an exploration of islands in the Indian Ocean was planned), but the lost war against France and Sardinia (1859) and the changed balance of power in Europe made these ideas even more unrealistic. Moreover, they did not fit into the foreign policy ideas of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Count Buol, and his successor, Count Rechberg. This marked the end of the colonial spirit of optimism for the time being. Only in connection with the opening of the Suez Canal (1869) - which was also the occasion for Emperor Franz Joseph I's trip to Jerusalem and Egypt (his only trip outside Europe) - similar projects reappeared, albeit without the chance of realization.

Until 1872, the acquisition of territory in southern Somalia was considered several times - East Africa continued to be of potential interest to Austria. Some plans, such as those of Theodor Hertzka from 1890, to found a colony called "Freiland" in the "hitherto abandoned" (sic!) highlands of Kenya, seem rather utopian, as does the idea born in 1903 to establish Theodor Hertzka's "Jewish state" not in Palestine but in Uganda. Around the turn of the century, Mozambique and the Spanish Western Sahara also emerged as possible Austrian colonial ambitions.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
https://www.bundesheer.at/truppendienst/ausgaben/artikel.php?id=767
 
That is not that surprising. The military was one of the few remaining unifying institutions left. They could fight a war, just not (very) effectively.
It did not solve the main problem, how to address growing national demands.

The army being very ineffective was the result of its underfounding and horrible leadership. Not being a nationstate was not the factor that prevented Austria from having a good and strong army.

And knowing Austrian history they would have likely end up with a solution that started off as temporary that became much more permanent than anyone ever intended and which would have been something uniquely austrian that really satisfied none but was good or tolerable enough to stave off any major rebellion or et least most of it - the rest would be handled by the army. Than they would muddle along with it till another change became absolutly necessery which would be solved by a similar way.
 
The army being very ineffective was the result of its underfounding and horrible leadership. Not being a nationstate was not the factor that prevented Austria from having a good and strong army.

And why was it underfunded?

What was more, Vienna's classic answer to all these particularist grievances was to smother them with committees, with new jobs, tax concessions, additional railway branch lines, and so on.
"There were, in 1914, well over 3,000,000 civil servants, running things as diverse as schools, hospitals, welfare, taxation, railways, posts, etc. ... so ... that there was not much money left for the army itself."
According, to Wright's figures, defense appropriations took a far smaller share of "national (i.e., central government) appropriations" in the Austria-Hungarian Empire than in any of the other Great Powers.
- Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, page 217

Lack of national-cultural cohesion.

knowing Austrian history they would have likely end up with a solution that started off as temporary that became much more permanent than anyone ever intended and which would have been something uniquely austrian that really satisfied none but was good or tolerable enough to stave off any major rebellion or et least most of it - the rest would be handled by the army. Than they would muddle along with it till another change became absolutly necessery which would be solved by a similar way.

The solution that started off as temporary that became much more permanent is the Republic of (German-)Austria which did develop enough national-cultural cohesion to last.
 
And why was it underfunded?

So is there a general rule that multiethnic state are not allowed to properly found a military?

- Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, page 217

Lack of national-cultural cohesion.

The solution that started off as temporary that became much more permanent is the Republic of (German-)Austria which did develop enough national-cultural cohesion to last.

Sorry but the Austria that "lasted" in your opinion is about 70-80 years old. Austria as Austria-Hungary lasted a bit more than 50. If we take the Austrian Empire after the birth of nationalism it lasted about 120 years. If we take the Austrian Habsburg Empire than about 400 years - and we could add a few centuries if we went for Habsburg Austria.

The age of nationalism will not last forever and IMO the idea is in decline since WWII. Austria could in the mean time come up with a lot of solution just to mention one federalization but even if they can get an arrangement that gives more but not all of its people power might be enough.

And though Austria was never a nation state some kind of Austrian culture or aspects of it did exist. The same state, leaders and burocratic body ruled this territories with similar laws and shared the same victories and defeats for 4 houndred years.

And I already stated that Austria proved pretty resilient in WWI. If it was in as bad a situation as some here think it would have fallen apart much sooner and much easier.
 
But it did kinda serve the same purpose as one, which is why AH wasn't as interested in African or Asian ones.

It was an Ottoman territory administered by AH and then it was incorporated into AH. If you consider it a colony, then you probably have to declare the Baltic Provinces and Caucasus region of the Russian Empire as colonies as well (not sure what was explicitly “colonial” purpose of BH besides expansion for expansion sake). Would it make sense?
 
It was an Ottoman territory administered by AH and then it was incorporated into AH. If you consider it a colony, then you probably have to declare the Baltic Provinces and Caucasus region of the Russian Empire as colonies as well (not sure what was explicitly “colonial” purpose of BH besides expansion for expansion sake). Would it make sense?

Many people do consider the baltics/caucasus russian colonies. It's not as fringe an opinion as you seem to think.
 
Many people do consider the baltics/caucasus russian colonies. It's not as fringe an opinion as you seem to think.

Many people do think that Alaska was lended to the US but their beliefs does not make it a fact.

Territory fully incorporated into the country (geographically and administratively) is not a colony. Notice that I did not mention Bukhara - it formally retained its own ruler and never was fully integrated into the Russian empire so it can be in theory considered a colony.
 
Many people do think that Alaska was lended to the US but their beliefs does not make it a fact.

Territory fully incorporated into the country (geographically and administratively) is not a colony. Notice that I did not mention Bukhara - it formally retained its own ruler and never was fully integrated into the Russian empire so it can be in theory considered a colony.

Having a local ruler is in no way a requirement for being a colony. land.
 
And neither is to be completely integrated with a rest of a country. So what is your criteria for such a claim besides ‘some people think so’?

The way Bosnia was governed was one way it was treated more like a colony than a fully-fledged part of the country. But there isn't a single criteria for when somewhere is a colony, it's a useful term to describe a regions relation to a dominant power sometimes.
 
So is there a general rule that multiethnic state are not allowed to properly found a military?

Multinational states can do that, but as the example of the USSR showed it is not without severe drawbacks.

Sorry but the Austria that "lasted" in your opinion is about 70-80 years old. Austria as Austria-Hungary lasted a bit more than 50. If we take the Austrian Empire after the birth of nationalism it lasted about 120 years.

Did it?
The Ausgleich resulted in an official name change to Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy and Bohemian opposition ensured that until 1915, the Austrian half was not officially called Austrian.
So much for the Austrian Empire.

The age of nationalism will not last forever and IMO the idea is in decline since WWII. Austria could in the mean time come up with a lot of solution just to mention one federalization but even if they can get an arrangement that gives more but not all of its people power might be enough.

Considering that the most multinational successor states of A-H did fall apart in the 1990s, outlasting nationalism was not an option.
Solutions would have to be radical, and it doubt that people were willing/able to implement them.

And though Austria was never a nation state some kind of Austrian culture or aspects of it did exist.

Of course, but it was not enough to establish an identity that could keep the realms together.

It was an Ottoman territory administered by AH...

British colonial rule in Egypt and Cyprus did not start in 1914.

... then it was incorporated into AH.

A formalization of A-H dominance. It remained subordinated to the A-H metropoles.
 
Top