Feel like Danubian Federation GDP per capita is way too high - it still started way behind and had very uneven developments between regions - you have Austria and Czech which already developed (and their individual GDP per capita still trailed France the last time Austria-Hungary was still an entity) but OTOH Hungary and the Adriatic states which were way less developed compared to say, France. Note that only countries with much smaller population and the US surpassed Germany IOTL in GDP per capita - assume that Germany level of development is OTL or higher.

42, 000 - 48,000 is about right IMO.

Danubian Federation wouldn't suffer from WW2 nor communism so economy should be far much better than in OTL. And DF would has great economic advantages.
 
Danubian Federation wouldn't suffer from WW2 nor communism so economy should be far much better than in OTL. And DF would has great economic advantages.
Sure, but their starting is still very low, if not way too low, to surpass Germany.

IMO, somewhere between Italy and France (closer to France) is about right - I am talking about per capita.

And it seems like we still assume that the UK would still run its economy to the ground like during 1960s-1970s IOTL - a hell of an assumption. Because DF wouldn't have surpassed the UK on per capita basis without that.
 
Last edited:
Do we think the Carpathisn Slavs get labeled as Ukrainians, Rusyns, Ruthenians, or something else? Maybe they try calling them Lodomerians, though that might better be used in the Galician area. I suspect the Trans-Carpathis area remains in Hungary. They might want to play off the very local culture versus the similar ones in the east and north, all the while continuing to try Magyarizing the area. Which reminds me how Hungary and Croatia had Latin as their official language in even the 1700s, I believe. Presumably not over all of it, but they each needed to standardize their own languages in writing first to avoid the official language becoming German and losing more of their identity. I suppose that is why Croatian uses the Latin alphabet. It is so similar to Serbian when spoken because the person standardizing it deliberately chose the version of Croatian closest to Serbian. That all being said, do we see the Austrians-Hungarian government having a hand in standardizing languages? I fear there is a chance it is like with Croatia, with the local leadership choosing that of a nearby independent country, so it really depends if we have an independent Ukraine here.
 
Feel like Danubian Federation GDP per capita is way too high - it still started way behind and had very uneven developments between regions - you have Austria and Czech which already developed (and their individual GDP per capita still trailed France the last time Austria-Hungary was still an entity) but OTOH Hungary and the Adriatic states which were way less developed compared to say, France.
Does A-H have any kind of geogpraphic or demographic features that would prevent it from catching up in a timeframe of more than a hundred years? IOTL Korea and Japan experienced a much higher jump in growth. Japan even surpassed Germany in the '80s. For this reason I don't think A-H being close behind Germany in terms of nominal GDP per capita and slightly ahead of it in terms of GDP PPP per capita is that outlandish of an idea. Of course, I admit that bias played some role when I chose those numbers, A-H is the centre of this TL after all.
Btw, if anyone's interested here's map about the GDP per capita of Austro-Hungarian regions in 1910:
Note that only countries with much smaller population and the US surpassed Germany IOTL in GDP per capita - assume that Germany level of development is OTL or higher.
That's not quite right. Germany wasn't always the leader of that metric among the European powers. In fact, Germany being so clearly ahead of France, Britain and even Italy is quite recent. Such trends only began in 2008.
42, 000 - 48,000 is about right IMO.
However, I will certainly take your input into account when I finally revisit the issue, so thank you for your contribution.
 
That's not quite right. Germany wasn't always the leader of that metric among the European powers. In fact, Germany being so clearly ahead of France, Britain and even Italy is quite recent. Such trends only began in 2008.
Because Germany had to integrated the much poorer Eastern part after 1991.

And Canada is really lowballed here - IOTL its GDP per capita has always been higher than the larger European economies plud Japan the entire time, except for Germany since 2008-2010.
 
Last edited:
And it seems like we still assume that the UK would still run its economy to the ground like during 1960s-1970s IOTL - a hell of an assumption.
True, I need to do some more in-depth research on the matter, that's for sure.
Because DF wouldn't have surpassed the UK on per capita basis without that.
Maybe.
Do we think the Carpathisn Slavs get labeled as Ukrainians, Rusyns, Ruthenians, or something else? Maybe they try calling them Lodomerians, though that might better be used in the Galician area. I suspect the Trans-Carpathis area remains in Hungary. They might want to play off the very local culture versus the similar ones in the east and north, all the while continuing to try Magyarizing the area. Which reminds me how Hungary and Croatia had Latin as their official language in even the 1700s, I believe. Presumably not over all of it, but they each needed to standardize their own languages in writing first to avoid the official language becoming German and losing more of their identity. I suppose that is why Croatian uses the Latin alphabet. It is so similar to Serbian when spoken because the person standardizing it deliberately chose the version of Croatian closest to Serbian. That all being said, do we see the Austrians-Hungarian government having a hand in standardizing languages? I fear there is a chance it is like with Croatia, with the local leadership choosing that of a nearby independent country, so it really depends if we have an independent Ukraine here.
From what I know, fragmentation of minority languages was encouraged within Hungary, while the Austrians followed more of a hands-off approach. The only minority language I could see officially breaking with its "mother language" is Rusyn. The developing standard Ukrainian language was too strongly based on the Southwestern dialects.
 
And Canada is really lowballed here - IOTL its GDP per capita has always been higher than the larger European economies plud Japan the entire time, except for Germany since 2008-2010.
Canadian economy is more closely aligned with the US economy, its GDP figures reflect that. Europe is better off because there was no WW2 ITTL. North America was less affected by the destruction of WW2 hence why US and Canadian figures are not much better compared to OTL.
Because Germany had to integrated the much poorer Eastern part after 1991.
That doesn't really matter since I was referring to figures preceding that too. Or could it be that World Bank figures combine BRD and DDR figures on Google Public Data?




 
Weirdly, Australia and Canada seem to have more or less OTL populations, which seems unlikely unless something terrible happened to them. Both countries took pretty serious hits from the wars, and the loss of life by the UK impacted migration as well. Especially for Australia, since the White Australia policy severely limited non-European migration, and limited even most European migration, favouring British migrants. It was loosened in the 50s out of fear of invasion from Asia (lilely to still arise given that it looks like Asian colonies are still going to get independence, and fear of Chinese invasion goes back to the 19th Century), and then abandoned entirely in the 70s and 80s. TTL Australia, if it has been about as prosperous and racistly paranoid as OTL, probably attracted even more migrants from Europe over the xourse of the first half of the 20th Century, since there won't have been about a decade in which migration shut down entirely due to war and a great depression, and having come over the course of decades rather than in a great mass in the late 40s-early 50s as European refugees were resettled, there's a decent chance that smaller towns and cities received more migrants and thus the population is a bit less concentrated. Unless something significant has happened, I'd bump both Australia and Canada's populations up a bit.

I think it at least arguable that, with a richer and stabler Europe, there simply might not have been as much push factors to drive permanent migration from Europe. This is especially the case since many European countries that either missed out on immigration over the 20th century or came to it only at a late point, notably Germany and Danubia, have presumably become noteworthy destinations in their own right at a relatively early date. This is not an inevitable outcome, but it is an imaginable one.
 
I think that Berlin and London passes Vienna even if not much. Of course Vienna would be much bigger city than in OTL.
Yeah I don’t think Berlin and London wouldn’t count as diverse enough like Vienna even with the Racial diversity, it wouldn’t match that diversity of many ethnic groups living in Vienna with highly that TL People would called it “New York City of Europe” Because it has more common with Actual New York City.

I also see before that Vienna will had Sizable Jewish population especially when the Jews from Hungary and parts of the Empire will arrives the City of Music. For reference in OTL 1934 there over 176,034 Viennese Jews in Austria where they living in the Fascist state and What country were significantly‘s smaller.
Now imagine if Austria still have an empire and have Incoming Jewish migrating from parts of the empire as well as a Growing Urban class of Viennese that will be rich through out the 20th Century
It would certainly be one of the most diverse metropolises of Europe, if not else. As for its wealth, it would be in a respectable position, but I don't think it would get the top spot.
Definitely the most diverse metropolis of all in Europe and London/Berlin weren’t even that Diverse compared to what AH Survive Vienna had. They will be people of many ethnic background and cultures that will be alien to even London and Berlin with how many people will habitat in Vienna: Hungarian, Slovenes, Croats, Poles, Ukrainian etc. will be neighbors in the Same Street even tho it would be Racial be overwhelming be White Dominant than New York City or even London/Paris.

As for the Wealth of the AH Vienna, it would probably be the Top 5 of the richest European cities along side with Berlin, Paris, Rome and London with how much Tourists will make to pay Big money to experience the “City of Dreams” as well as Big Investors from the wine industry and many religious groups as well.
Don't forget Budapest, which was also an incredibly diverse and vibrant city - in fact, there was such a large and vibrant Jewish community there that the nickname that it was sometimes given (disproportionately by Anti-Semites) was <German word for Jew>-pest. (Also, 3 of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century came from the same neighborhood in Budapest: Teller, Szilard, and von Neumann - who was one of the Greatest thinkers to ever live - to the extent that they had the same Maths teacher). So it would be more that there would be several great cosmopolitan super-cities in AH, which would be one of the greatest intellectual powerhouses in the world.
I think that Both Vienna and Budapest will the most Diverse city in Europe especially with the Many immigration from Balkans, Eastern and Central Europe. Plus they will have numerous Cultures mixing into the New identity of Viennese and Budapese in 2019 AH. AH Survived Budapest might be called the “Los Angeles of Europe” with it large Jewish community that will highly be as large as French Jews today in over 480,000 or even more. Slovene, Czech, Romanian and German etc would be Habitat in the AH Multicultural Budapest with likely that it will be over Millions more will live in Survived AH.

Remember in 1910 Budapest they were over 200,000 of Jews living there now imagine immigration from Eastern Europe and the Balkans will likely boost Jewish population up by over 3x Time through out the 20th Century
 
Last edited:
Yeah I don’t think Berlin and London wouldn’t count as diverse enough like Vienna even with the Racial diversity, it wouldn’t match that diversity of many ethnic groups living in Vienna with highly that TL People would called it “New York City of Europe” Because it has more common with Actual New York City.

I think that Berlin is a city that is going to be in a similar position as Vienna, as being transformed radically compared to OTL, simply because Berlin like Vienna will not have missed out on almost a century of growth. IIRC both cities have not regained their peak populations. London, which like Paris did see consistent strong growth throughout the 20th century, will probably do somewhat better, but it will not be so different from OTL.
 
Canadian economy is more closely aligned with the US economy, its GDP figures reflect that. Europe is better off because there was no WW2 ITTL. North America was less affected by the destruction of WW2 hence why US and Canadian figures are not much better compared to OTL
Both actually already had higher GDP per capita than Western Europe before 1914. In addition, despite the high growth of Germany, the US economy was *running away* from it plus other European states during the prewar era.

It is not easy to replicate Japan's economic performance - there were factors that A-H simply did not and would not have: massive amounts of investments from the US; access to US market; stable political majority in government in the form of the LDP allowing Japan to implement and keep its long-term oriented policies for decades; not having to spending lots of money in defense in terms of % of GDP (and yet it still has a quite functional military).

On the other hand, in A-H, this guy's efforts to reform the economy were basically stonewalled by ethnic tensions and interest groups.
 
Last edited:
Without the post-WW1 destructive events of OTL, I predict a more dynamic and higher overall growth for this alt Habsburg Monarchy compared to OTL. A x2,05 total growth from 1910 to 2019 might seem a tad bit high at first glance, especially since OTL's growth was abysmal compared to that, but I didn't just pick a number randomly. I based my numbers on the growths of both Italy and Spain. Two Catholic countries which had comparable GDP per capita to Austria-Hungary in the early '10s. Italy's population growth was about x1,71, while Spain's x2,37 within this timeframe IOTL. With the OTL experiences of these countries' and Austria-Hungary's different geographic features taken into account, I concluded x2,05 to be a reasonable number to go with.
IMO Austria-Hungary would be more comparable to Italy than Spain since Italy had a rich industrialised North and a poor rural South analogous to a rich industrialised Bohemia and Austria and a poor rural Transleithania and Galicia and Lodomeria while Spain had next to no rich industrialised areas at all. Austria and Bohemia would thus undergo an early demographic transition comparable to neighbouring Germany while in Transleithania and Galicia and Lodomeria this process would take a couple of decades longer.

Furthermore a higher population growth in central Europe would result in emigration numbers remaining high instead of collapsing like they did IOTL. A higher native population would also decrease external migration to Austria compared to OTL since those slots would be filled with internal migrants from the empire's poorer regions.
 
Last edited:
I think that Berlin is a city that is going to be in a similar position as Vienna, as being transformed radically compared to OTL, simply because Berlin like Vienna will not have missed out on almost a century of growth. IIRC both cities have not regained their peak populations. London, which like Paris did see consistent strong growth throughout the 20th century, will probably do somewhat better, but it will not be so different from OTL.
Why I agree that Vienna will Definitely had a Radically changed from their Viennese counterparts in OTL but OTL Berlin isn’t really that compared to Vienna because Berlin have got destroyed by World War II and got separated for 21 long Year’s until the Berlin wall fell in 1989 plus they had to deal with East Berlin with its poverty and stagnation by Communism policy.

I don’t know what OP said that it taken place in TLWW (Timeline of No World Wars) or OTL but by the look of it, kinda look it OTL but regardless. Vienna didn't get occupied by the Germans during the World War 2 nor they get the Soviet treatment and getting divided up afterwards, the City didn't get bomb or damaged enough to effect Vienna growth unlike Berlin
 
Why I agree that Vienna will Definitely had a Radically changed from their Viennese counterparts in OTL but OTL Berlin isn’t really that compared to Vienna because Berlin have got destroyed by World War II and got separated for 21 long Year’s until the Berlin wall fell in 1989 plus they had to deal with East Berlin with its poverty and stagnation by Communism policy.

I don’t know what OP said that it taken place in TLWW (Timeline of No World Wars) or OTL but by the look of it, kinda look it OTL but regardless. Vienna didn't get occupied by the Germans during the World War 2 nor they get the Soviet treatment and getting divided up afterwards, the City didn't get bomb or damaged enough to effect Vienna growth unlike Berlin

Neither Berlin nor Vienna have retained their peak populations before the Nazis and the dissolution of their empires. Vienna may have suffered less physical damage, but its trajectory was just as disrupted as Berlin's.
 
IMO Austria-Hungary would be more comparable to Italy than Spain since Italy had a rich industrialised North and a poor rural South analogous to a rich industrialised Bohemia and Austria and a poor rural Transleithania and Galicia and Lodomeria while Spain had next to no rich industrialised areas at all. Austria and Bohemia would thus undergo an early demographic transition comparable to neighbouring Germany while in Transleithania and Galicia and Lodomeria this process would take a couple of decades longer.

Furthermore a higher population growth in central Europe would result in emigration numbers remaining high instead of collapsing like they did IOTL. A higher native population would also decrease external migration to Austria compared to OTL since those slots would be filled with internal migrants from the empire's poorer regions.

That last does not naturally follow. There is absolutely no reason why a large country cannot have a high birth rate while also attracting large numbers of internal and external migrants. The United States is an excellent example of this, while in Europe countries like France and Sweden and the Netherlands are also noteworthy. There is no such thing as limited slots for migrants.
 
That last does not naturally follow. There is absolutely no reason why a large country cannot have a high birth rate while also attracting large numbers of internal and external migrants. The United States is an excellent example of this, while in Europe countries like France and Sweden and the Netherlands are also noteworthy. There is no such thing as limited slots for migrants.
The United States was a country which until the closing of the frontier had plenty of "free" land, somethimg absolutely not the case in Austria-Hungary. Now IOTL you still had immigrants staying in the industrial north-east instead of heading west and claiming some land there,, but IOTL both Austria and Bohemia/Czechoslovakia did attract mostly immigrants from areas of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire which ITTL would be considered an internal migration, thus not adding to the overall population of the Empire, merely keeping the population balance between its' developped and rural parts. And with enough domestic hands to fill the jobs at the lathes and assembly lines there will be less of a drive to sign recruitment agreements with southern European countries and Turkey/the Ottoman Empire than IOTL.
 
I have an idea that I think Everyone on this Thread will be interesting to discuss and that is… … .. Wouldn’t subject’s of the Empire or a Citizen of the Federation of the Austria Hungary not Bother to learn English language or at least not the Full Instant in OTL?
1661999974950.jpeg

1662000002747.png

This is the crash of European countries who speak the English language is simply in the EU. As you see that Austria, Slovene and for lesser extent Croats understand speak the English language than Most of European Union can besides Obvious Ireland, Britain and Nordic countries. They had no problem with learning the English language across Austria as well as other parts of the former Yugoslavia and Czechoslovak because it pretty pp want to speak English.

In Survived AH however is highly wouldn’t use as Much English in across the Federation.
Why is that the case then?
Because of this
1662013679770.jpeg

The Austria Hungary has Officially established only 3 languages of German, Hungarian and Croatian but that only the OFFICIAL accord to the Government in 1914.
This is the Unofficial language that AH Government didn’t recognize back in 1914
95AD80C7-67B8-493A-A7F1-90B490D89BC6.jpeg

Now imagine that but it official language and you had to learn in this to function across Danubian society like with Working, Cities and Everyday things to live into this Average Danubian subject lifestyle.
Do you think they will have any other time to learn English? They already learned likely 3 to 10 languages especially in the Cities and Metropolis centers across in AH specifically in Viennese and Budapester City where they Definitely be Many ethnic groups will move there need to learn the language to go on Everyday life.

So you might have AH citizens refusing to speak English because they already have a bunch of languages they have to learn and don’t want to deal with Americans tourist ignorance about it.

what do you guys think about it?
 
Last edited:
Do you think they will have any other time to learn English? They already learned likely 3 to 10 languages especially in the Cities and Metropolis centers across in AH specifically in Viennese and Budapester City where they Definitely be Many ethnic groups will move there I need to learn the language to go on Everyday life.
People naturally segregate into ethnic neighborhoods, a Romanian in Vienna (for instance) would only need to know Romanian and German. English would still be a valuable language because the US would be the largest global economy and an innovator in many fields (both cultural and industrial) and the UK not far behind it. A local example would be the American and British contribution to the Galician oil industry.
 
Since in TL where is surviving AH (no matter is that WW1 totally avoided or CPs win the war) German would be in Europe dominant language anyway regarding science, trade and culture, English is quiet needless outside of Britain and other anglosphere countries. English wasn't seen important language on mainland Europe even yet long time after end of OTL WW2. ITTL German would remain much more prominent language.

Most people in AH (or whatever name it uses ITTL) would learn German since it is most important national language and you are going to need that in many places.
 
The United States was a country which until the closing of the frontier had plenty of "free" land, somethimg absolutely not the case in Austria-Hungary. Now IOTL you still had immigrants staying in the industrial north-east instead of heading west and claiming some land there,, but IOTL both Austria and Bohemia/Czechoslovakia did attract mostly immigrants from areas of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire which ITTL would be considered an internal migration, thus not adding to the overall population of the Empire, merely keeping the population balance between its' developped and rural parts. And with enough domestic hands to fill the jobs at the lathes and assembly lines there will be less of a drive to sign recruitment agreements with southern European countries and Turkey/the Ottoman Empire than IOTL.

I was thinking of the 20th century United States, long after the frontier was closed. That country had a high birth rate and also lots of domestic migration and lots of international migration.

It is, simply put, a mistake to assume that labour markets are homogeneous and unified. A country might even have high rates of unemployment and underemployment while also attracting lots of immigrants; Spain and Italy come to mind.

If we are imagining a much richer Austria-Hungary, one that closes the gap separating it from northern and western Europe, then that would easily be enough to help make it a major destination. Roaring economic growth attracts lots of people and the effects are not nearly bounded by national boundaries.
 
Top