By 1900, how doomed was the Austro-Hungarian Empire?

[Drunkrobot]

The 20th Century was not kind to heterogeneous states, in much the same way as the Sun is not kind to ice-cream. To an extent even in the typically left-leaning and cosmopolitan (compared to mainstream opinion) world of history academia, by the second half of the century there seemed to be a tone of inevitability attached to states which didn't at least centralise and enforce conformity in terms of language - states with different ethnicities and religions could be successful, but language was another thing entirely. Some of these academics, the older generation, would've been around to see the end of one such state in particular, Austria-Hungary.

The question is, was it destiny for that state to fall apart? Without it taking the monstrous step of ethnic cleansing, could it have endured with simple change in its fortunes? What would need to have happened to avoid its fall? Would it needed to have won World War I, or even avoid the war entirely, for example?

 

[marathag]

Would it needed to have won World War I, or even avoid the war entirely, for example?

Chances are much higher if it's just the Third Balkan War, rather than the Great War.
No Russian Mobilization, no WWI, and A-H gets a chance yo sort out the Hungarians and other groups

 

[Aghasverov]

Was torn between choices 2 and 3, finally settled on 2. I think the final unpleasant demise of the Empire was largely due to external factors (Wilson, Lansing, House, I'm looking at you); the internal matters could've been resolved - somewhat - with no WWI.
I think you could almost do better considering the situations in the 2 "halves" of the Empire separately... I think reform would've come easier, and sooner, to the Austrian-dominated Cisleithanian realms than to the Hungarian-dominated Transleithania...

 

[Deleted member 94680]

One can argue the history of the Hapsburgs is a history of compromise and adjustment after disappointment and defeat.

Vienna would have found a way to make it work, given time. After July 1914, there just wasn't enough time.

 

[Jiraiyathegallant]

AH was strengthening before the war, so I don’t see why reforms are needed to avoid disintegration. I don’t think they were any less stable than the rest of Europe (bar Britain) over the previous century, and had 50 years of stability before WWI. Maybe many years down the road that could change, but that can be said about any country.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

I'm no expert so correct me if I'm wrong, but the only two major things that really prevented reform otl was conservative hapsburg rulers and the Hungarians not wanting to share special privleges with the other minorities?

 

[Dominic]

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was fairly resilient. Most of the people in it understood that while sharing power was inconvenient, both the 19th and 20th centuries were far more unkind to small and vulnerable countries than it was to a single big one, however messy it might be. The only groups in the Empire that didn't have to worry about this so much were the Italians and, ironically, the Austrians. With the fear of Russia and even Germany on the border, it is not surprising that it took more than 4 years of warfare to finally cause the country to collapse.

 

[Myth]

The 20th Century was not kind to heterogeneous states, in much the same way as the Sun is not kind to ice-cream. To an extent even in the typically left-leaning and cosmopolitan (compared to mainstream opinion) world of history academia, by the second half of the century there seemed to be a tone of inevitability attached to states which didn't at least centralise and enforce conformity in terms of language - states with different ethnicities and religions could be successful, but language was another thing entirely.

Modern America is becoming extremely heterogeneous, and is not generally considered to be in danger of anything. It is far larger than Austria-Hungary would have been at, say, mid-century. Europe as a whole is also moving toward becoming a single political unit, although this project, admittedly, is considered to be in greater danger.

 

[lukedalton]

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was fairly resilient. Most of the people in it understood that while sharing power was inconvenient, both the 19th and 20th centuries were far more unkind to small and vulnerable countries than it was to a single big one, however messy it might be. The only groups in the Empire that didn't have to worry about this so much were the Italians and, ironically, the Austrians. With the fear of Russia and even Germany on the border, it is not surprising that it took more than 4 years of warfare to finally cause the country to collapse.

Even inertia had his limit and inner working of the A-H was more complicated (politically) than the actual EU and it's not a way for a nation to survive long term. A-H survived 4 years only thanks to massive German help and even in case of victory she will have not survived the following economical and social clash...and this period was the zenith of nationalism everyone wanted at least a lot of autonomy, thing that the Hungarian surely don't want as they continue their massive magyarization of their part of the Empire a program that really really really was not liked by everyone else

AH was strengthening before the war, so I don’t see why reforms are needed to avoid disintegration. I don’t think they were any less stable than the rest of Europe (bar Britain) over the previous century, and had 50 years of stability before WWI. Maybe many years down the road that could change, but that can be said about any country.

Because people wanted more democratic reform, the Czech wanted at least much more autonomy, the Magyar continuing doing whatever they want while the rest of the empire wanted avoid magyarization, the Austrian continuing to believe that Napoleon never existed...saying that everything was ok on A-H is basically trying to avoid reality

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Went for option no. 2. IMO the biggest detriment to Austria, which could have easily be removed by any stroke of fate, was the unprecedented 68 year long reign of Franz Joseph. Had Franz Ferdinand been monarch during the 1905 Hungarian Political Crisis then the Empire's main structural tension would have been resolved then and there.

 

[dieg-ish]

The 20th Century was not kind to heterogeneous states, in much the same way as the Sun is not kind to ice-cream. To an extent even in the typically left-leaning and cosmopolitan (compared to mainstream opinion) world of history academia, by the second half of the century there seemed to be a tone of inevitability attached to states which didn't at least centralise and enforce conformity in terms of language - states with different ethnicities and religions could be successful, but language was another thing entirely. Some of these academics, the older generation, would've been around to see the end of one such state in particular, Austria-Hungary.

The question is, was it destiny for that state to fall apart? Without it taking the monstrous step of ethnic cleansing, could it have endured with simple change in its fortunes? What would need to have happened to avoid its fall? Would it needed to have won World War I, or even avoid the war entirely, for example?

The real question is: was it really worth it? I mean, even in an ATL in which there were no world wars it's pretty hard for the Austro-Hungarian empire to survive, and I'm not sure if the majority of the people would have wanted it.

Think of it this way. In one hand, you got the 70% of the population who wasn't German or Jewish (I include the Jewish people in this group because they were pretty happy in the Empire) and who felt more allegiance to their own regional or ethnic identities and who probably would have wanted to set up their own nations (Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czechs) or to be attached to neighboring ones (specially Italy, Romania, Serbia and to a minor extent Russia). In the other hand, you got the other 30% of the population who was German or Jewish, and which was divided between those who considered themselves as part of an independent cultural identity (Austria) and those who considered themselves Germans with a different passport. In both hands, you got people who felt loyalty to the Hapsburg monarchy regardless of their ethnic or religious identity, and that's what kept the Empire alive for a long time. But for how long?

I think that all of the internal contradictions within the Empire would have caused its eventual dissolution. But that doesn't means that such process would have had to be violent. In fact, it would have been a great solution if the empire divided itself between several realms ruled by different Hapsburg princes, with the core Austria possibly becoming a part of the German Empire and the rest of the regions becoming independent nations. In my opinion, that would have been an elegant solution.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

The real question is: was it really worth it? I mean, even in an ATL in which there were no world wars it's pretty hard for the Austro-Hungarian empire to survive, and I'm not sure if the majority of the people would have wanted it.

Four hundred and eighty odd years of history would suggest otherwise. Why, in your view, is it hard for the Empire to survive?

Think of it this way. In one hand, you got the 70% of the population who wasn't German or Jewish (I include the Jewish people in this group because they were pretty happy in the Empire) and who felt more allegiance to their own regional or ethnic identities and who probably would have wanted to set up their own nations (Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czechs) or to be attached to neighboring ones (specially Italy, Romania, Serbia and to a minor extent Russia).

Except that’s just not true. Where was Croatian or Slovenian separatism before WWI? How pronounced was the Czech independence movement before 1914, outside of extremists, that later events have somehow given credence to?

Who in the sweet hell wanted to be attached to Russia?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

regional or ethnic identities and who probably would have wanted to set up their own nations (Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czechs)

On the contrary, most of the ethnicities you listed explicitly didn't want to fend for themselves. Thus why they formed multi-national states (Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia) after the break up of the Empire.

Ironically, of the listed ethnicities, the only ones that set up their own nation after their empire's break up were the Hungarians, who were only in favour of independence if Hungary it got to keep it's mini-empire (it didn't), and the Poles, who were generally pretty loyal to Vienna as the only other options were Berlin or Moscow.

to a minor extent Russia).

A REALLY minor extent, the Habsburgs had been pretty successful in nurturing Ukrainian nationalism.

But for how long?

With no reform? As long as it takes for a crisis on the level of/worse than A-H's OTL WWI experience. With reform, possibly much longer.

 

[dieg-ish]

Four hundred and eighty odd years of history would suggest otherwise. Why, in your view, is it hard for the Empire to survive?

Four hundred and eighty odd years of history in which concepts such as ethnic nationalism and popular sovereignity were just beginning to take shape.

I think that it's too hard for the Empire to survive because no one wants to live in a country in which its culture isn't treated with respect, but instead it's supressed and ignored. And sooner or later, the people would have realized that.

Except that’s just not true. Where was Croatian or Slovenian separatism before WWI? How pronounced was the Czech independence movement before 1914, outside of extremists, that later events have somehow given credence to?

Who in the sweet hell wanted to be attached to Russia?

That's exactly my point. Even if in the run-up to World War I those movements weren't developed enough, what would have happened within ten years? Or twenty? It was just a matter of time for secessionist groups to start to organize if there's no inmediate threat of a continental war.

As for Russia, as far as I understand (I could possibly be wrong) there was some people in what today is Eastern Ukraine that wanted to be united with the rest of Ukraine, which was a part of the Russian Empire. And I believe there was also an element of pan-slavic nationalism at the time, when the concept wasn't as toxic as it would eventually be.

I'm not an expert on this matter, but this is how I see it.

 

[cjc]

Thing is Austria-Hungary was not very healthy to begin whith, economically it was doing better mainly because it had so far to go, but publicity it was a mess, if the parliament had to shut down from 1899 to 1914 because two ethnic groups couldn't use it whithout trying to kill each other then that's not a healthy body politic no madder the country.

Four hundred and eighty odd years of history would suggest otherwise. Why, in your view, is it hard for the Empire to survive?

Because the 20th century is very different then the 18th?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

if the parliament had to shut down from 1899 to 1914 because two ethnic groups couldn't use it whithout trying to kill each other then that's not a healthy body politic no madder the country.

You'd have a point, if that actually happened... I think you'll find that the Reichsrat and Hungarian Diet met, had regular elections, and passed legislation through most of that period.

 

[Ayoitsme]

Its definitely a possibility but by no means inevitable, and I struggle to see Bosnia remaining in it long term

 

[marathag]

I think that it's too hard for the Empire to survive because no one wants to live in a country in which its culture isn't treated with respect, but instead it's supressed and ignored. And sooner or later, the people would have realized that.

At the same time the Russians were cracking down on the Poles and the 'Stans, Hungary- everyone who wasn't an ethnic Magyar, Austria was going the other direction, allowing other Cultures, as long as there was respect for the Monarchy, and most of the Empire though better of the Austrians for it.
They weren't a bad choice, compared to everyone else in the Balkans and Eastern Europe
Being under the Russians, Hungarians and Turks pretty much sucked if you were not part of the favored groups

 

[Aghasverov]

Its definitely a possibility but by no means inevitable, and I struggle to see Bosnia remaining in it long term

I remember reading that the Bosnian Muslims, after a rough initial year or so after the full incorporation of B-H into the Empire in 1908, became in general rather well-regarded for their loyalty. Seems that a good many of them knew that becoming yet another ethnic/religious minority in a nation that was full of ethnic/religious minorities, was better than the available alternative(s)...

 

[marathag]

You'd have a point, if that actually happened... I think you'll find that the Reichsrat and Hungarian Diet met, had regular elections, and passed legislation through most of that period.

But also a lot of Mess with the Czechs monkeywrenching all the legislation they could after 1897 or so, but had a lot of support from the Polish areas, so things worked, barely.