This a bit vague. Negoatiated peace in favor of the Central Powers will result in something like FillyofDelphi’s suggestion, although I think Germany would take Ukraine into its own sphere of influence. Negoatiated peace in Entente’s favor could vary wildly depending on how desperate the Central Powers are.Say America doesn't join world war 1
What would Austro-Hungarian borders be in negotiated peace in mid to late 1918
This a bit vague. Negoatiated peace in favor of the Central Powers will result in something like FillyofDelphi’s suggestion, although I think Germany would take Ukraine into its own sphere of influence. Negoatiated peace in Entente’s favor could vary wildly depending on how desperate the Central Powers are.
Return to status quo is a possibility, if it's in Central Power favor, which it doesn't have to be. A negotiated Peace in Entente favor would probably not be that good for Austria, since Germany wouldn't back them that much, and mainly focus on them keeping as much as possible themselves. Heck, a negotiated Peace in Entente favor could even have provisions for Anschluss.Say America doesn't join world war 1
What would Austro-Hungarian borders be in negotiated peace in mid to late 1918
This a bit vague. Negoatiated peace in favor of the Central Powers will result in something like FillyofDelphi’s suggestion, although I think Germany would take Ukraine into its own sphere of influence. Negoatiated peace in Entente’s favor could vary wildly depending on how desperate the Central Powers are.
Return to status quo is a possibility, if it's in Central Power favor, which it doesn't have to be. A negotiated Peace in Entente favor would probably not be that good for Austria, since Germany wouldn't back them that much, and mainly focus on them keeping as much as possible themselves. Heck, a negotiated Peace in Entente favor could even have provisions for Anschluss.
Say America doesn't join world war 1
What would Austro-Hungarian borders be in negotiated peace in mid to late 1918
Because Austria was barely able to keep themselves together, and had become completely reliable on Germany. Basically their survival was based on Germany's interest in keeping them alive. If Germany negotiate from a position of strength Germany want them to keep being their southern ally, but preferably not be strengthened at all. If Germany has to say give up Alsace- Lorraine and maybe give some minor concessions to poland (say less than OTL), then letting Austria fail and allow the German Austrians to have a referendum to join Germany would look very tempting. At this point in time the only thing keeping the Habsburg monarchy intact anymore was Germany.I'd argue that even a negotiated peace from a position of Entente strength (Which one could argue Versailles was... if a very extreme example of), on a more moderate level because by 1918 there aren't any Entente powers LEFT in a strong position who's interests in Habsburg territories is strong enough to be willing to spend their political capital on it. What motivation do they have to push for a limited dismantiling of A-H, when Russia and Romania have capitulated and Serbia is a destroyed depopulated husk who won't be able to hold together its gains in peacetime under exterior pressure.. France and GB are going to be spending the handful of concessions they have the ability to command on things of far greater personal strategic/security issues; especially if they want German co-operation in intervention in Russia which I always assume is a factor in a negotiated end to WWI
Because Austria was barely able to keep themselves together, and had become completely reliable on Germany. Basically their survival was based on Germany's interest in keeping them alive. If Germany negotiate from a position of strength Germany want them to keep being their southern ally, but preferably not be strengthened at all. If Germany has to say give up Alsace- Lorraine and maybe give some minor concessions to poland (say less than OTL), then letting Austria fail and allow the German Austrians to have a referendum to join Germany would look very tempting. At this point in time the only thing keeping the Habsburg monarchy intact anymore was Germany.
Basically Austria would probably not be discussed at all in Versailles, being understood to be a German issue at this point (as you said the Entente doesn't really have any power there, but if Germany doesn't keep Austria afloat Austria would fall on their own. There's likely to be a separate treaty between Germany and the Entente if Austria collapses that decide how the post Austrian landscape would look).
One thing the Entente might ask for is some minor revisions on the Italian border, maybve Gorizia, but considering how bad things went for Italy it's not guaranteed. (or there could be secret provisions that Another Conference is to be held if Austria collapses, with everyone agreeing on that it will happen).
One is not like the others. Transylvania had a clear Romanian majority.No, in hindsight, diamembering the habsburg empire was really the product af Wilson naivety. Also it was done in the most hypocritical way, which means with double standards; you want to rewrite the map of europe on an ethnic base? Well, so gove sudetenland to austria and transylvania to Hungary. Oh and leave Tyrol to austria,too
I was thinking stalemate with no clear victorWe need more context. Which side wins in such a scenario?
In hindsight dismantling Austria-Hungary was a very stupid thing to do for the entente...Austria-Hungary would have been the only thing capable of containing a resurgent Germany, much better than minor powers like Czechoslovakia or Poland.
The Czechs would have done fine if the British hadn't threatened them in order to get them to give up their border fortresses, factories, etc to the Germans, who then used those in their own war.In hindsight dismabtling Austria-Hingaru was a very stupid thing to do for the entente...Austria-Hungary would havr been thr only thing capable of containing a resurgent germany, much better than minor powers like Czechoslovakia or Poland.
As to the OP, well bu 1918 France and Uk were mainly busy with Germany and had no direct reasons of enmities with Austria. A negotiated peace,even one in entente favor would probably leave austria untouched, or, even better strenghten her a bit.
For dismantling austria to be a rational thing you should at least dismember germany, and even then, why add otber instability?
No, in hindsight, diamembering the habsburg empire was really the product af Wilson naivety. Also it was done in the most hypocritical way, which means with double standards; you want to rewrite the map of europe on an ethnic base? Well, so gove sudetenland to austria and transylvania to Hungary. Oh and leave Tyrol to austria,too
the czechs, nor the more powerful polish had nonr of the sheer demographical power they needed in order to counyer resurgent Germany without massive french involvement...involvement that would have predictably not possible as franece had an unstable political situation and a sensible denograhphical disadvantage against the Germans.The Czechs would have done fine if the British hadn't threatened them in order to get them to give up their border fortresses, factories, etc to the Germans, who then used those in their own war.
As for Wilson, it wasn't him responsible for all those changes. Czechoslovakia had the Sudentland because it had been part of the Kingdom of Bohemia and Margravate of Moravia for somethignnlike eight hundred years. Himmler actually complained that they had no culture of their own, and his people researched and came to the conclusion that Bohemia-Moravia was more racially valuable than the Sudetenland had been. As for South Tyrol, have of it Italian. The Germanic areas were south of the Alps. Besides, not as if anyone supported the efforts of Voralburg to join Switzerland, which had a Germanic dialect closer than the ones the Austrians spoke. Ahhh, and American commissioners supported the Austrians getting Klagenfurt. And Americans supported the independence of Turkey and Albania, while their reports from polling people all the rough the Middle East was that they would prefer Americans being the mandate power if ANY was, as they believed the Americans would leave fairly soon. After all, Arabs had been doing all the government work in those areas for centuries. And as others mentioned, Transylvania wasn't majority Magyar.
I am afraid this reminds me of Israel to an extent. Sorry for bringing it into this thread, but I feel it highlights a point. Neither the French, not British, nor Americans gave them statehood. They took it themselves, and fought for it, with those countries supporting them later as they had shown strength and the ability to hold their own weight against neighboring countries.the czechs, nor the more powerful polish had nonr of the sheer demographical power they needed in order to counyer resurgent Germany without massive french involvement...involvement that would have predictably not possible as franece had an unstable political situation and a sensible denograhphical disadvantage against the Germans.
Indeed, among the Entente politicians that would have preferred A-H to survive in some form as counterweight to Germany was even Winston Churchill, but with the Czechs and then the Hungarians themselves aiming for independence any survival chances for A-H vanished.
agreed...in an entente victory scenario, Galicia may go to Poland, while...mmm...Silesia to Austria? It was, after all, a bohemian province, before tge Prussians stole itHistorically, the Habsburgs at the tail end of the war were using a "have the prisoners watch one another" approach in terms of preventing large scale, organized uprisings: garrisoning Czech forces in Transylvania, Magyars in Bohemia, Poles in Bosnia, ect. This works at preventing independence movements for the short-medium term as it isolates and alienates the citizens and insurgents from the organized armed forces, making the later oppressive and unyielding out of self preservation. Once the war is over, that's not to say further decentralization/federalization won't occur as part of a final peace or that there aren't going to be years if not a decade of rebuilding the state institutions, cracking down on insurgents, ect., but the kind of critical mass of rebels and vacuum of state power needed to get a secessionist state is unlikely to be reached in any particular region before Vienna can recover
I am afraid this reminds me of Israel to an extent. Sorry for bringing it into this thread, but I feel it highlights a point. Neither the French, not British, nor Americans gave them statehood. They took it themselves, and fought for it, with those countries supporting them later as they had shown strength and the ability to hold their own weight against neighboring countries.