Austrian monarchy post-WWI?

What were the chances of Austria remaining a Hapsburg realm (either a greatly diminished Austrian Empire as before 1848 or just the Kingdom of Austria) after World War One? Would a shorter, less horrifyingly bloody war have made the Entente willing to tolerate it? Maybe the Hapsburgs are kept in place as part of a central/eastern European bulwark against Communism (perhaps the German communists make a better show of things, frightening the British and French)? Any thoughts?
 
pretty low chances.... being seen as the instigator of WWI I doubt the victorious allies would be too inclined to keep an Emperor in Austria.

possibly as you say, if a worse communist threat came in Austria (the Vienna Soviet maybe?) the Entente would see a monarchy as the lesser of two evils and put Otto back on the throne.
 
What were the chances of Austria remaining a Hapsburg realm (either a greatly diminished Austrian Empire as before 1848 or just the Kingdom of Austria) after World War One? Would a shorter, less horrifyingly bloody war have made the Entente willing to tolerate it? Maybe the Hapsburgs are kept in place as part of a central/eastern European bulwark against Communism (perhaps the German communists make a better show of things, frightening the British and French)? Any thoughts?

Make A-H sing separate peace when it still had some value for Allies
IIRC Wilson 14 points weren't explicitly calling for liquidation fo the A-H
 
Most of you know that I think Karl was treated really badly by history, but I don't see how, realistically, he could have held onto Austria. Perhaps as monarch of Austria in union with Germany, a la the King of Bavaria? But the Allies were insistent that the German monarchies had to go.

The sad thing to me is that few Austrians came to Karl's defense. There was no organized resistance to the proclamation of the Republic. Even most members of the Habsburg family seemed to acquiesce.
 
Have a POD in which Russia stays in the war (successful Dardenelles Campaign or something). With Russia staying in the war I don't think that the United States needs/would to get involved. I'm think that Russia's overthrow of the Czar was a big factor in Wilson deciding to push for war, and with a October-less Russia he would much less inclined to get into the war, plus Germany would probably be more careful about provoking the US, not wanting to bring even more heat down on them (or perhaps they are more reckless, either way, doesn't really matter). With Czarist Russia staying in the war lots of things change in the Versailles Conference. Among them is Austria's status as a Republic. Russia doesn't like republics, and since Russian troops are the main Allied force in Eastern Europe their dislike of republics is taken into consideration in the Conference. So Austria remains a monarchy, say it gets down-graded to a kingdom, in a personal union with Hungary, which is just as territorially reduced as OTL. Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicates his thrown to his son Wilhelm III but the Imperial German monarchy is not overthrown, and Bohemia (the name of Czechoslovakia in ATL) gets a new king as well (any ideas who this could be . . . perhaps Prince Harald of Denmark?). Bulgaria also might get cut up and married to Yugoslavia (provides a nice big, easily manipulated client state next to the now Russian Thrace, which includes Constantinople). I don't know if Poland gets to be its own country, but I doubt it. Russia just moves its border a bit further west, taking Prussia from Germany, but leaving them Danzig. Russia gets Austrian Galacia, which is really a curse, since now nearly the entire population of Poles is inside Russia.
 
Have a POD in which Russia stays in the war (successful Dardenelles Campaign or something). With Russia staying in the war I don't think that the United States needs/would to get involved. I'm think that Russia's overthrow of the Czar was a big factor in Wilson deciding to push for war, and with a October-less Russia he would much less inclined to get into the war, plus Germany would probably be more careful about provoking the US, not wanting to bring even more heat down on them (or perhaps they are more reckless, either way, doesn't really matter).
The Czar wasn't exactly deposed in the October coup.
Sorry for that nitpick, but ignoring the February Revolution paints the Blosheviks in a better light then they deserve.
 
Actually Karl was liked by the French , where he had many friend in High Places. It is remotely possible that he might have been allowed to become the King of Austria.
 
Actually Karl was liked by the French , where he had many friend in High Places. It is remotely possible that he might have been allowed to become the King of Austria.

If the war ended earlier or Karl's attempts to make a separate peace after he realised Germany wouldn't agree to a negotiated settlement, it is actually pretty likely. As the more thoughtful statesman would have realised a decently strong Hapsburg state as a check to Germany in the SE would be a valuable tool in establishing a more stable European system.

Steve
 
If the war ended earlier or Karl's attempts to make a separate peace after he realised Germany wouldn't agree to a negotiated settlement, it is actually pretty likely. As the more thoughtful statesman would have realised a decently strong Hapsburg state as a check to Germany in the SE would be a valuable tool in establishing a more stable European system.

A check on Germany? Really? Because looking at it from an Allied perspective circa 1919, and even from my own seat, in 2008 knowing what we now know about what would happen, I would see a continuing Hapsburg dynasty in Austria or Hungary as the center of revanchist sentiment, aimed against Yugoslavia. As the Hapsburg who gets to keep Austria I would focus my attention on the Croats, who were always loyal subject in the AH Empire, and who had a vocal and militant opposition to the whole Yugoslav project. Also, with the Kaiser deposed in Germany the possibility exists that the monarchist sentiment in Germany would turn to the Austrian Hapsburg. The Hapsburg King could be embraced as a living relic of the First Reich, the Holy Roman Empire, and thus their rule over a "re-united" Germany seen as a "Restoration" of the First Reich. Plus, if the Austrian King is made the German Kaiser, he brings Austria with him, a major bonus, and actually the whole point of the "Restoration."

Really the problem with what the Allies had was that the only way to check Germany was for the Anglo-French to continue to closely monitor the Germans, or to have make an Eastern European country strong enough and with enough national interests in monitoring Germany, or to make Germany so weak that they didn't need to be monitored. They didn't do either choices 2 or 3 and failed in their duty on choice 1. They pissed Germany off, but didn't put Germany down or effectively counter Germany. Really, looking back on it, the Anglo-French would have been better off not having the Americans in the fight, because I think they would have won anyway, and when they did the peace that the French really want and the British are willing to let them impose, is so brutal that Germany won't be able to challenge France again. Wilson allowed the Germans to get off, and his insistence on "National Self-determination" created a bunch of weak little countries that were no match for Germany, and the lack of enforcement of the secret treaties created a bunch of tensions within the formerly allied camps. I mean really, what would the Americans, the French or the British have lost by letting the Italians annex the other side of the Adriatic? The answer is nothing. By not letting them annex the other side of the Adriatic they pushed a fragile democracy into the arms of the Moose.
 
A check on Germany? Really? Because looking at it from an Allied perspective circa 1919, and even from my own seat, in 2008 knowing what we now know about what would happen, I would see a continuing Hapsburg dynasty in Austria or Hungary as the center of revanchist sentiment, aimed against Yugoslavia. As the Hapsburg who gets to keep Austria I would focus my attention on the Croats, who were always loyal subject in the AH Empire, and who had a vocal and militant opposition to the whole Yugoslav project. Also, with the Kaiser deposed in Germany the possibility exists that the monarchist sentiment in Germany would turn to the Austrian Hapsburg. The Hapsburg King could be embraced as a living relic of the First Reich, the Holy Roman Empire, and thus their rule over a "re-united" Germany seen as a "Restoration" of the First Reich. Plus, if the Austrian King is made the German Kaiser, he brings Austria with him, a major bonus, and actually the whole point of the "Restoration."

Really the problem with what the Allies had was that the only way to check Germany was for the Anglo-French to continue to closely monitor the Germans, or to have make an Eastern European country strong enough and with enough national interests in monitoring Germany, or to make Germany so weak that they didn't need to be monitored. They didn't do either choices 2 or 3 and failed in their duty on choice 1. They pissed Germany off, but didn't put Germany down or effectively counter Germany. Really, looking back on it, the Anglo-French would have been better off not having the Americans in the fight, because I think they would have won anyway, and when they did the peace that the French really want and the British are willing to let them impose, is so brutal that Germany won't be able to challenge France again. Wilson allowed the Germans to get off, and his insistence on "National Self-determination" created a bunch of weak little countries that were no match for Germany, and the lack of enforcement of the secret treaties created a bunch of tensions within the formerly allied camps. I mean really, what would the Americans, the French or the British have lost by letting the Italians annex the other side of the Adriatic? The answer is nothing. By not letting them annex the other side of the Adriatic they pushed a fragile democracy into the arms of the Moose.

Matthais

Possibly we're arguing at cross purposes because I'm thinking of an 'Austria' state which includes much of the 1914 empire. I.e. no clash with Yugoslavia over Croatia because its still part of the empire. Probably the only losses would be Bosnia [to a greater Serbia], Galicia [to Poland] and some trade off for the Italians. As such you avoid the Wilsonian disaster of a weak and fragmented SE Europe. [With all its problems its not a super-power but specially with reforms to improve support from the various Slavic groups it could be significantly removed.

There is a danger that the Hapsburg monarchy might become the new centre for monarchical feeling in Germany. However if so it will alienate both republican feeling in Germany and those loyal to the Hohenzollern dynasty. Furthermore anyone in Vienna seeking to follow that approach will face the problem that they faced historically. That a state with only a relatively small number of Germans and much larger numbers of Hungarians and Slavs will become the leaders of a German national revival? The Hapsburgs are far more likely to seek to stamp on any such suggestions to avoid generating massive unrest in the territories they control already.

Steve
 
I see what you're getting at. But do you think that its plausible that the Austro-Hungarian Empire would be allowed to get away from the war without major territorial losses?

So your foreseeing Austro-Hungary losing Galacia, Bosnia, Transylvania, Czechoslovakia, but keeping OTL Austria, Hungary, Croatia, and Slovenia? I could actually see that happening. The problem I think that would be found is that there is little logic in keeping Croatia separate from Yugoslavia. Language was being used to determine nationality at this point, and Croatia speaks the same language as Bosnia and Serbia, so it made sense to join it to Yugoslavia, plus without Croatia, the Greater Serbia has virtually no access to the Adriatic, and sea access was seen as a key issue for the new countries that the Allies were carving out of the carcass of AH.

Also at the end of OTL WWI, Austria actually voted to annex itself to Germany before Versailles was pounded out. The Allies refused to allow the Austrian self-annexation to Germany, since that would mean that Germany was emerging from WWI larger than it was pre-WWI. Perhaps an initially successful Communist uprising in Germany, with many "White" Germans fleeing to Austria, and there embrace Karl as the King of Austria. The Allies, not wanting to allow Germany to fall to Bolshevikism, support the "White" Germans in Austria, and behind the symbol head of Karl retake Germany. Austria remains officially separate as a part of the deal for Allied support, but after the Freikorps finish up the "Liberation" of Germany (1926-7), Austria is annexed to Germany, and the Allies, now quite over intervention in the affairs of Germany, just lets it go.
 
Last edited:
Top