Nationalism is overrated. None of the major ethnic groups in the Empire actually tried to get independence prior to 1918, and those that did universally had an outside supporter of the same ethnicity. The Austro-Hungarian Empire did have an inefficient political system, and this would need to be reformed, but that reform would not be 'ethnic violence' in any of the core territories. It would be democratic, like the rest of Europe. Europe prior to 1914 was not the hotbed of nationalist hatred that it is often remembered as, it was a peaceful, increasingly wealthy, and increasingly democratic place - and that's how everyone liked it.
By 1900, how doomed was the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
- Thread starter Drunkrobot
- Start date
Nationalism is overrated. None of the major ethnic groups in the Empire actually tried to get independence prior to 1918, and those that did universally had an outside supporter of the same ethnicity. The Austro-Hungarian Empire did have an inefficient political system, and this would need to be reformed, but that reform would not be 'ethnic violence' in any of the core territories. It would be democratic, like the rest of Europe. Europe prior to 1914 was not the hotbed of nationalist hatred that it is often remembered as, it was a peaceful, increasingly wealthy, and increasingly democratic place - and that's how everyone liked it.
Deleted member 94680
So, just based on your feelings and nothing approaching a source or even a theory? Culturally suppressed to the point they had their own political parties, ethnic assemblies and regional governmental apparatus?
No one can say for a certainty. But given there had been twenty or so years of nationalist politics and ethnic groupings, I’m confused as to why you seem to think it’d be so definitely resulting in separatism rather than (the OTL spoken of) federalism.
I would say that is a very bad reading of what happened
That you are no expert is quite apparent, believe me. I would recommend reading at least one history of the Austrian Empire before making such sweeping statements. The end game of the Empire was very much an outlier on the path of Austria’s political life and as others have said, the path leading to it has often been coloured by the final result.
I have noticed that just about EVERY general European/world history textbook I have ever seen (yes, I am a geek who enjoys collecting such things 
) treats "nationalism", particularly of the ethno-linguistic variety, as a sort of inexorable, unstoppable force from the end of the Napoleonic wars onward - regardless of the discernable political leanings of the author(s).
Now, granted, most of these are post-WWI and by English-language authors (I might could struggle through one in German or Spanish, but it would be, well, painful and time-consuming)... it has occurred to me that, for the ones in the interwar period, that there's an element of justification involved - "well, this was inevitable anyway, so we thought we'd push it along, after all, we knew what the Central and Eastern Europeans wanted/needed better than they knew themselves" and that for the post-WWII period, an element of apologia - "well, we sort of screwed that up, but you can't fault us because it was still inevitable..."
) treats "nationalism", particularly of the ethno-linguistic variety, as a sort of inexorable, unstoppable force from the end of the Napoleonic wars onward - regardless of the discernable political leanings of the author(s). Now, granted, most of these are post-WWI and by English-language authors (I might could struggle through one in German or Spanish, but it would be, well, painful and time-consuming)... it has occurred to me that, for the ones in the interwar period, that there's an element of justification involved - "well, this was inevitable anyway, so we thought we'd push it along, after all, we knew what the Central and Eastern Europeans wanted/needed better than they knew themselves" and that for the post-WWII period, an element of apologia - "well, we sort of screwed that up, but you can't fault us because it was still inevitable..."
I believe the idea of Austria Hungary as a house of cards simply waiting to fall apart is both overstated and not true. AH entered the greatest conflict in human history (at the time) in middle of army reform and re-equipping. The military leadership was horrible. The emperor respected even by his greatest enemies died before it ended. The poor military leadership led to millions of loses in the early period of the war crippling the ability to conduct war from the onset even further. They faced enemies on 3 fronts including the greatest land power of Europe. Their fleet was trapped in. The Hungarians hamstrung the war effort from within, sometimes by insisting shipyards not suited to building battleships build one. Sometimes by blocking food shipments and diverting them to Hungary leading to famine.
It took all of that to make it fall apart, and even after it fell there wasn’t lasting or intense hatred freed people usually feel towards their former rulers. And not to mention that the most decorated units for bravery in the KuK army were consisted of empires minorities. People may be forced to fight but they can never be forced to bravery and to go beyond the call of duty.
The Habsburg themselves were not strangers to compromise to keep the country together, and nothing shows they’d be reluctant to do so again.
Reforms if conducted well could guarantee the empire to survive.
It took all of that to make it fall apart, and even after it fell there wasn’t lasting or intense hatred freed people usually feel towards their former rulers. And not to mention that the most decorated units for bravery in the KuK army were consisted of empires minorities. People may be forced to fight but they can never be forced to bravery and to go beyond the call of duty.
The Habsburg themselves were not strangers to compromise to keep the country together, and nothing shows they’d be reluctant to do so again.
Reforms if conducted well could guarantee the empire to survive.
Another reason why Habsburg restoration wasn't allowed by Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia in the interwar years. They believed the Sudeten Germans and the Slovenes and croats would go back to a renewed Habsburg Austria which they could not allow. There was a high chance it could have happened.
I know in Croatia once the initial honeymoon period of Yugoslavia wore off many missed it. In Bosnia many greeted nazis with flowers due to fondness for Austria Hungary. Hungarians themselves tore their hairs out once they realized that leaving Austria doesn’t mean you get to keep the land and rule over others nor that they have a way of enforcing it.
Agreed. If instead of a process of Magyarization, imagine if the education system focused on how different Slovenes, Croats, Transylvanians, and Slovaks were from Serbians, Romanians, and Czechs. They aren't going to want panslavism after decades of that. It would turn out as well as fixing the Netherlands to Germany.
Ya...no Austrian politics was a absolutely shit show and possibly the only time a matriarch had to have a period of personal rule because its parliament had issues not between parliament and the monarchy.
Also gust because the country lasted 4 years of war dosnt say much about its underlining strength, every country got a big boost of national unity during the war, it dosnt actually tell us if that unity would been there if it hant happened or if the war had gone away.
That's quite the walk back from "the parliament had to shut down from 1899 to 1914". You know, the claim I was replying to...
Austria had pretty severe electoral grid lock, yes. Here's the thing though, no country has ever fallen apart due to electoral grid lock.
So we should ignore the wartime trends? Fine. We have the pre-war trends to go by. Independence was a fringe position prior to the war.
Honestly I'd say the Empire was either going to need massive structural changes or it would be gone by the 50s at the latest. But said changes might have saved it clear through today
Denmark had a 35 years long electorial gridlock with the government for a decade only ruling through provisional budget laws, open fighting in the streets between socialist worker and the police, the farmers establishing militias to overthrow the government.
Denmark is still around and the hated monarchy is also still around and beloved today.
Thomas1195
Banned
Denmark was a largely homogenous country. Now, the case of A-H would be your Danish deadlock plus tension between multiple ethnics and separatism.
It was really the Hungarian portion of the Empire that was unstable in terms of ethnicity. The Austrian portion was largely pretty quiet and stable. The Slovenes, Czechs, Poles, and Dalmatians and even majority of the Italians were largely quiet and pretty happy with the Habsburgs. It really was Hungary with the Magyarization policies that created ethnic tensions between them and the Serbs, Croats, Slovaks and Romanians.
The only notable dissenters in the Austrian portion of the empire was in Bosnia after 1908 and the Ukrainians in Galicia; and even the Ukrainians were largely protesting against the Polish monopoly over the province itself and not the Habsburgs.
The ethnic strife in the A-H is very very very overstated.
The only notable dissenters in the Austrian portion of the empire was in Bosnia after 1908 and the Ukrainians in Galicia; and even the Ukrainians were largely protesting against the Polish monopoly over the province itself and not the Habsburgs.
The ethnic strife in the A-H is very very very overstated.
Deleted member 94680
Yes, but what state isn’t? What state would survive “one or two crises” in swift succession without collapsing? Given that a crisis is often labelled as such after the effects are known.
What I meant was some throwaway statement that Austria-Hungary was doomed to collapse as it wouldn’t last past the 1950s is as inane as saying the British Empire was doomed to collapse (not evolve, reform, redefine or further democratise) in the 1910s absent WWI or defeat in WWI.
Speaking from a Croatian perspective our problem was not that we were part of A-H but that we were subservient to Hungary. As per Croatian law the personal union between Hungary and Croatia was ended in 1526 with the death of Louis II and the Croatian diet elected Ferdinand to be the new king of Croatia. Therefore it was seen as trampling of state rights that Hungary was placed above Croatia. If anything throughout the Hapsburg rule Croats were among their most loyal subjects. I doubt that would have changed if Croatia was actually given equal status to Hungary or had been transferred from Transleithania to Cisleithania.
I selected option 2, because I believe that the Habsburg Monarchy, like the British, has a long history of 'muddling through'. It took the shock of war, four years of deprivation, and defeat to topple the institution. And what ever one may think of FF, he knew and stated that war with Russia would mean that one or both of the dynasties would fall. Clearly as Franz II (his intended regnal name) there would have been serious attempts at reform. These may or may not have worked since there were serious obstacles, the worst of them speaking Magyar. Barring a general collapse of European peace (and consider the possibility that Franz II could have triggered a civil war with Hungary and that would have become TTL's Great War) the Empire was not going to completely collapse. Some reforms would work, some would fail, and some pieces of the empire might fall away, but there would still be a Habsburg in the Hofburg. And it Karl would still have the good sense to die young, although not too young, so that an adult Otto I could succeed Franz II, then I think the prospects for Imperial survival are very good.