Italy is in an interesting position. On one hand, they never denounced the Triple Alliance, something that in OTL only happened in May 4th, 1915 as a prelude to the entry in the war on the Entente's side. As such, the alliance still theoretically stands: Italy did little more than sitting an offensive war out, something the treaty absolutely included (article 4, In case a Great Power non-signatory to the present Treaty should threaten the security of the states of one of the High Contracting Parties, and the threatened Party should find itself forced on that account to make war against it, the two others bind themselves to observe towards their Ally a benevolent neutrality). On the other hand, they clearly sat out an extremely important war, something Germany and Austria will be extremely miffed about (at best). On the third hand, Austria went and pissed all around the Balkans, something she was bound by treaty with Italy to not do (and which they did anyway, frequently, on the lead up to the war, to Germany's neverending headache). Interesting all around, in short.
East first! Europe after a German / CP victory in 1916
- Thread starter Helmuth48
- Start date
Thank you for the good explanation! You are probably right that the Russians have no troops available for an offensive in the Caucasus. However, the Russians do control the Black Sea and can easily bring reinforcements to the Caucasus front by train. The Ottomans can only bring in reinforcements via muddy mountain roads. A successful Ottoman offensive is therefore unlikely. Incidentally, the Ottomans will not leave the Bosporus and Dardanelles undefended. The question is also how many Ottoman troops are deployed against an Alexandretta campaign. Given the shorter western front, the French also have troops left. All in all, a lot of butterflies. A stalemate is likely to develop along the existing Russian-Ottoman border.
The map below shows the OTL Caucasus campaign (up to 1916) and a hypothetical Alexandretta campaign.
Well, I hereby extend this TL for Austria-Hungary and I go into more detail:
Austria-Hungary has no clear war aims regarding Serbia. In general, the Austrian leaders are in favor of annexation, while the Hungarian leaders want to leave a smaller Serbia independent. An independent Serbia is seen as a danger by Austria, because it can continue to propagate the Greater Serbian idea and serve as a base for terrorism. The danger of annexation is that the Slavic influence in the Habsburg monarchy will be strengthened, which will weaken the Hungarian influence. No agreement was ever reached in OTL.
In this TL, Austria cedes Galicia to the new Habsburg kingdom of Poland. As compensation, and in order to remain credible as a great power, Austria succeeds in realizing the annexation of Serbia and Montenegro. These countries are being ruled as condominiums for the time being, pending a final solution. The Austro-Hungarian occupation of Serbia was very repressive, but because lasting peace is only possible with an equal relationship, Austria is making a concession to the Serbs and Montenegrins. Following the example of Bosnia, a constitution is drawn up for both countries in 1917:
In the years that follow, the economic situation for the Serbs and Montenegrins gradually improve and tensions ease. However, in Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, as well as in Croatia-Slavonia and to a lesser extent Slovenia, a movement is emerging that strives for the establishment of a South Slavic kingdom with an equal position with respect to Austria and Hungary. In the respective diets, this movement achieved a large majority. Emperor Karl I supports this idea of Trialism and various proposals are being developed.
However, these proposals are repeatedly rejected by the Hungarian government and parliament. The Austrian government does approve the proposals and is increasingly frustrated with Hungary's refusal to implement reforms. Tensions are also increasing again in the South Slavic countries. These eventually lead to riots and attacks against Hungarian police and government institutions. The uprising also spread into Serbian inhabited areas in Hungary itself, i.e., in the Vojvodina and the Banat. Hungary wants to use the army, which is refused by Austria. A deep constitutional crisis is emerging. Hungary stands alone and must eventually back down and agree to the most far-reaching proposal:
How plausible is this TL? How will the Triple Monarchy (What is actually a good name for this state?) develop further? What are the Czechs, Slovaks and Romanians going to do?
Austria-Hungary has no clear war aims regarding Serbia. In general, the Austrian leaders are in favor of annexation, while the Hungarian leaders want to leave a smaller Serbia independent. An independent Serbia is seen as a danger by Austria, because it can continue to propagate the Greater Serbian idea and serve as a base for terrorism. The danger of annexation is that the Slavic influence in the Habsburg monarchy will be strengthened, which will weaken the Hungarian influence. No agreement was ever reached in OTL.
In this TL, Austria cedes Galicia to the new Habsburg kingdom of Poland. As compensation, and in order to remain credible as a great power, Austria succeeds in realizing the annexation of Serbia and Montenegro. These countries are being ruled as condominiums for the time being, pending a final solution. The Austro-Hungarian occupation of Serbia was very repressive, but because lasting peace is only possible with an equal relationship, Austria is making a concession to the Serbs and Montenegrins. Following the example of Bosnia, a constitution is drawn up for both countries in 1917:
Serbia and Montenegro are each given a diet with legislative powers for internal affairs. Foreign policy and defense, however, remains in the hands of the joint Austro-Hungarian ministers. Serbia and Montenegro have no influence on this. The budget must also be approved by the Austro-Hungarian finance minister.
In the years that follow, the economic situation for the Serbs and Montenegrins gradually improve and tensions ease. However, in Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, as well as in Croatia-Slavonia and to a lesser extent Slovenia, a movement is emerging that strives for the establishment of a South Slavic kingdom with an equal position with respect to Austria and Hungary. In the respective diets, this movement achieved a large majority. Emperor Karl I supports this idea of Trialism and various proposals are being developed.
However, these proposals are repeatedly rejected by the Hungarian government and parliament. The Austrian government does approve the proposals and is increasingly frustrated with Hungary's refusal to implement reforms. Tensions are also increasing again in the South Slavic countries. These eventually lead to riots and attacks against Hungarian police and government institutions. The uprising also spread into Serbian inhabited areas in Hungary itself, i.e., in the Vojvodina and the Banat. Hungary wants to use the army, which is refused by Austria. A deep constitutional crisis is emerging. Hungary stands alone and must eventually back down and agree to the most far-reaching proposal:
- The Kingdom of South Slavia is founded with Karl I as king. This kingdom consists of five Crown lands, each with a large degree of autonomy. Brod is designated as the capital; a small town halfway the Zagreb-Belgrade railway line and with a direct railway line to Sarajevo. Brod will not be part of a Crown land, but will form a neutral capital district. Freedom of religion is established in the constitution.
- Hungary must not only cede Croatia-Slavonia, but also the southern Banat. It must also accept a border change with Austria, whereby the German-speaking west is ceded to Austria (Burgenland). Ujvidek (Novi Sad) will be retained for Hungary.
- For the Slovenes, a long-standing wish is coming true, i.e., to be united in one Crown land. Slovenia becomes part of South Slavia to strengthen the Catholic influence against the Serbian Orthodox.
- As in the Dual Monarchy, this Triple Monarchy has three joint ministers; Foreign Affairs, Defense and Finance. From now on, each state will provide one joint minister.
How plausible is this TL? How will the Triple Monarchy (What is actually a good name for this state?) develop further? What are the Czechs, Slovaks and Romanians going to do?
Last edited:
Probably more realistic than a lot I've seen here. Some things are rubbing me the wrong way, but I can't fully put my finger on them.
Now however that this is Austria in a way, do we see a proportional system for the three joint Ministries? As in one Minister from all three component kingdoms?
Not fully sure on the separate capital for Slavia, but it's been done before, so why not. And putting that one into Belgrade is just asking for trouble. I'd have expected one of the Croatian cities to be honest, because they will for the foreseeable future (together, with the less numerous Slovenes) be the preferred ethnicity down there...
On point of contention might be transportation. I can see the 'Austrian' interests screaming when their railways suddenly pass into another component kingdom, maybe with different regulations on the way south to Trieste. Maybe to the point where rail and the merchant navy is subordinated to the joint Financial Ministry?
The magnates will have a big stick here to whip up the population, but not a lot of power to actually do something. The problems will arise with a new generation of politicians who will seek alliances with the other component kingdoms. And for the Hungarians to overcome the 'lost' lands will take a while I assume. On the other hand, OTL shows that there is a place for a potential cross component kingdom social-democrat (or even socialist) party. So it will likely be the left to make those steps.
The future will also bring agitation for a northern slav kingdom, I assume, but by that point the argument can be made that would lead to a slow splintering of the Empire anyway... Or for it to be created with the introduction of a stronger 'imperial' parliament replacing the mere joint ministries, devolving the component Kingdoms to mere states again with all the problems that will bring with it - going from a three tier federal system to a four tier one...
Finally, it's Graz, not Gratz.
Now however that this is Austria in a way, do we see a proportional system for the three joint Ministries? As in one Minister from all three component kingdoms?
Not fully sure on the separate capital for Slavia, but it's been done before, so why not. And putting that one into Belgrade is just asking for trouble. I'd have expected one of the Croatian cities to be honest, because they will for the foreseeable future (together, with the less numerous Slovenes) be the preferred ethnicity down there...
On point of contention might be transportation. I can see the 'Austrian' interests screaming when their railways suddenly pass into another component kingdom, maybe with different regulations on the way south to Trieste. Maybe to the point where rail and the merchant navy is subordinated to the joint Financial Ministry?
The magnates will have a big stick here to whip up the population, but not a lot of power to actually do something. The problems will arise with a new generation of politicians who will seek alliances with the other component kingdoms. And for the Hungarians to overcome the 'lost' lands will take a while I assume. On the other hand, OTL shows that there is a place for a potential cross component kingdom social-democrat (or even socialist) party. So it will likely be the left to make those steps.
The future will also bring agitation for a northern slav kingdom, I assume, but by that point the argument can be made that would lead to a slow splintering of the Empire anyway... Or for it to be created with the introduction of a stronger 'imperial' parliament replacing the mere joint ministries, devolving the component Kingdoms to mere states again with all the problems that will bring with it - going from a three tier federal system to a four tier one...
Finally, it's Graz, not Gratz.
Thank you for reporting the typo, I corrected it.
Well, I think it can go two ways:
- Or more joint institutions, more powers for the joint ministries indeed, a federal parliament, more separate federal states, etc.
- Or aversion to further fragmentation, the three states their own diplomacy, their own defense, etc. But the customs union will remain intact, I think.
And Hungary will want to prevent further loss of territory at all costs...
kham_coc
Banned
I don't think the Czechs would be in favour of anything that leads to splintering - After all, if there is a split, the odds are very good that they will switch from being a third of the population of Austria (or something like that) to being a bigger version of the Sorbs in Germany propper. On the other hand, there would probably still be serbs (and other slavs) who would want independence, and the Hungarians, well, they are hungarians. In short, the Chechs would be a lot more in favour of the status quo.
The movement existed publicly and influentially OTL since at the very least 1848 where there was a pan-Slavic congress in Prague IIRC. As you can also see by the very dynamics that lead to Czechoslovakia in 1918 OTL. And yes, they would likely agitate for a northern Slavic Kingdom - not just a Czech, or Bohemian for the matter, one.
The victory in the 'Great War' as well as the existence of a Poland that includes Galicia will put a dampener on their ideas (As mentioned, strong pan-Slavic currents in that movement, at least prior to 1900. Though I expect the Russian faction to wither completely in this scenario. After 1900 Czechoslovak historiography makes the issue muddy at best.), but will not remove them in the nationalistic currents of the early 20th century. Or not, as they could see it as their 'right' after their work in the Great War and with helping keep Hungary down.
And I don't think they will see Germany as too big a threat. After all they are agitating for their own Kingdom within the Habsburg Monarchy, not it's splintering (even if that very act could act as a driver for that event some time down the line). And well, Germany only annexed Luxembourg in this scenario as outlined by Helmuth48. Sure, there will be awareness of the more extreme (right wing?) Austrian-German nationalists working towards such a thing. But those plans will be likely ignored, despite the large German minority in Bohemia.
In their minds, it will work something like this: Why should this Northern Slavic Kingdom end up in Germany, when they and their Southern Slav brethren will keep the Empire together even if some idiots manage to remove some of it's oldest component parts. HRE? Ancient history. And you don't see the Germans calling for restoring rule over Northern Italy, do you?
Depending on the economic situation. If the (world) economic forecast are good, that is if the majority of the population are well fed and experience a growing welfare thant the first will happen.
Trieste and its' hinterland, connecting it to Austria proper, as part of South Slavia doesn't make sense. The Slovene population there was a minority and it had historically always belonged to the HRE. It was also Austria's most important harbour on the Mediterranen. I could see Austria surrendering other parts of the Austrian Littoral to South Slavia, but not Trieste Province.
I agree. Minor border adjustments are one thing; Trentino around Trent I can kinda buy; but the Austrians had controlled the bulk of Istria going back many centuries. Losing it means giving up their primary sea access, largest naval base, and a lot of imperial palaces, too.
As for Hungary: I can see them giving up Croatia and Slavonia without too much of a fuss. Maybe Fiume if they are fighting about something more important like the Burgenland or the southern Banat (Fiume was part of the Kingdom of Hungary and not part of Croatia legally as it was a gift from Maria Theresa to Hungary - before that it was part of Austria). Giving up mostly the Burgenland and the southern part of the Banat will be guaranteed to be a huge uproar - I especially dont see why you would reward your enemy (we are just after the war with Serbia) to the detriment of your ally Hungary. The Burgenland especially would also destroy any goodwill about Austria and the now Triple Monarchy in Hungary. OTL when Austria got it after WWI it was felt as a huge betrayal on part of the Austrians in Hungary - they new that the serbs and romanians were the enemy long ago but nobody expected this from Austria.
I mean have you read the OP?
Nobody is talking about Trentino at all, since Italy wasn't in this ATL WW1. Trieste isn't 'lost', but assigned to a different component kingdom. Unless someone gets the idiotic idea to reinstall internal tariffs, little to nothing will change for shipping goods in and out of there (Though the industrialists will milk the situation for all they can). It is still ruled by the Habsburgs, if via Brod instead of Vienna.
And well, Slovenia very much needs to be part of the Southern Slavic Kingdom because they are the counterweight to the Serbs, keeping them out of running that kingdom. It's not the SHS-State, it's Croatian dominated with a slash of Slovene.
The only reason to retain Trieste as part of the Cisleithanian crown is if there is a fear that the Italians will team up with the Serbs, since the city had a sizeable population (4th largest in the nation, IIRC), and some 60% or so were Italian, though the war might have shifted demographics a bit. (And the hinterland was majority Slovene/Croat depending on the exact patch unless I severely misremember)
As for Hungary, as OP described, they played chicken and lost. Not sure about all the border adjustments, but they don't seem that out of place. Though I can see some people arguing that losing Croatia is punishment enough. The Banat is because that caused the situation in the first place. And Burgenland is probably the bone for the German-nationalist faction for loosing Krain and Küstenland. (Note that Cisleithania retained lower Styria.)
Lastly, Romania wasn't the enemy in this ATL, they actually joined the CP against Russia.
Nobody is talking about Trentino at all, since Italy wasn't in this ATL WW1. Trieste isn't 'lost', but assigned to a different component kingdom. Unless someone gets the idiotic idea to reinstall internal tariffs, little to nothing will change for shipping goods in and out of there (Though the industrialists will milk the situation for all they can). It is still ruled by the Habsburgs, if via Brod instead of Vienna.
And well, Slovenia very much needs to be part of the Southern Slavic Kingdom because they are the counterweight to the Serbs, keeping them out of running that kingdom. It's not the SHS-State, it's Croatian dominated with a slash of Slovene.
The only reason to retain Trieste as part of the Cisleithanian crown is if there is a fear that the Italians will team up with the Serbs, since the city had a sizeable population (4th largest in the nation, IIRC), and some 60% or so were Italian, though the war might have shifted demographics a bit. (And the hinterland was majority Slovene/Croat depending on the exact patch unless I severely misremember)
As for Hungary, as OP described, they played chicken and lost. Not sure about all the border adjustments, but they don't seem that out of place. Though I can see some people arguing that losing Croatia is punishment enough. The Banat is because that caused the situation in the first place. And Burgenland is probably the bone for the German-nationalist faction for loosing Krain and Küstenland. (Note that Cisleithania retained lower Styria.)
Lastly, Romania wasn't the enemy in this ATL, they actually joined the CP against Russia.
Romania might have joined the CP's in the war but that does not change the aims of Romanian nationalists - most prominent among them to conquer/liberate Transylvania. That they used the opporunity to acquire another aim - Bessarabia - does not mean they would have given up on the first.
And the OP asked how plausible it was. IMO its not. Hungary could be made to back down and accept a trialist solution, give up Croatia and Fiume - that can happen. But the southern Banat and Burgenland are considered part of Hungary proper and would not be given up without a fight - part of the Burgenland OTL after the loss of WWI was occupied by a hungarian milicia which formed its own state for a while (Lajtabánság) - it was because of this that a plebistice was held in Sopron which decided that the city will remain part of Hungary.
As for not being able to do much? The imperial army is strunctured in a way that at an insurrection in southern Hungary I think the hungarian pailrlaiment would be able to use the Honvéd even without the KuK getting involved - and to put that down it should be more than enough. Though Austria refusing to use the KuK will be again seen as a betrayal.
OTL Hungary gets a lot of flack because it refused founding to the KuK - and looking at WWI rightly so. But dont forget we are speaking of an army that they had no control ower and an army which was perfectly ready and willing to make - and very likely to execute - "U-plan"s. I think looking at the russian threat it was idiocy not to develope the KuK more but for the other reasons perfectly understandable as well.
Othala has already expressed my train of thought very well. I can add that the border changes in TTL also aim to bring the borders between the three states more into line with the linguistic borders.
In Hungary proper (excluding Croatia-Slavonia) only 54% of the population spoke Hungarian before WW1. After the TTL border corrections, this percentage will be higher, because there were hardly any Hungarians in Burgenland and the southern Banat. Does that really make the loss of these areas so traumatic for the Hungarians? Maybe you are right, they are Hungarians after all. I can imagine that it will not improve relations between Austria and Hungary.
Serbs are no longer an enemy, as they are embedded in the new state structure. The nationalist desire to unite all South Slavs has been fulfilled, especially with the southern Banat added. Well, there will be some hardliners who would rather see this happen under Serbian leadership, but they will be locked up. The founding of South Slavia does not take place immediately after the Great War, but about 5 years later, 1921.
Last edited:
I dont dipute most of that - actually the logical choice would have been to give up all the territories with not hungarian population. But there are two groups - who together I think will constitute a solid majority at the very least in the hungarian pairlaiment and likely the population - who wont accept this without a fight: nationalist and conservatives. The borders of Hungary proper havent changed for quite a long while - and in the imagination of these people way much longer than in reality. As for the nationalists: we are in the era of the height of nationalism. This is way too soon IMO both to accept the serbs and to attempt a border change for Hungary proper. Hungary and Austria took nearly 20 years to make peace after the 1848 revolution - 5 years is way too early to forgive and forget on an acceptable scale - im not saying that it should be 20 years just that 5 is way too few. Not to mention that the recently beaten serbians are already acting up - way too early again. And the south eastern part of the Banat was not serbian - it was and is romanian.
Further and more importantly it doesnt matter what we think is logical - or better than OTL - what matters is how the people on the ground than and there would have seen it - and to them hugary proper was a Holy Cow. Touch that without a massive trouble earlier - and maybe even with those - and I dont think you could avoid a civil war (which Hungary would loose of course but thats another story). Is Burgenland worth it to piss away any existing godwill between Austria and Hungary?
And even if you somehow pull this off without a civil war - which again I think unlikely in the long run and impossible in 5 years - what the hungarians would have seen is that the KuK after making U plan earlier now completly fails to provide aid or protection, that Austria takes their ancestral territory to themselves and to the serbians. At that point no hungarian pairlaiment ever would vote a single crown or a single recruite for the KuK. And honestly : Why would they at that point?
And finally I want to point out that despite the Burgenland having a clear german majoity OTL the area that was asked voted to remain in Hungary - and you made the Burgenland actually much bigger than the OTL area. The germans were not a real problem in Hungary - actually they were mostly pretty well integrated (notable exceptions are the saxons in Transylvania). But OTL the romanian were considered the only real threat inside the country before WWI.
Just commenting on the vote (and not touching the rest because I don't want to spend the rest of my day arguing on the internet): out of 9 places that had the plebiscite 5 voted for Austria and 4 for Hungary. It's just the one big one (Sopron/Ödenburg) that is among those that voted for Hungary. And even contemporary reports from the Hungarian government admitted that those votes hadn't been done properly. Several thousand 'Germans' had been removed from the voting lists, while Hungarians from Hungary proper were brought in to fill up the votes. Additionally several hundred agitators and 40 State police (?) were brought in to prevent Austrians from campaigning and to actively discourage them from voting. Quick checking reveals the primary source for that is a report filed by a Frigyes Villani, the Hungarian government representative on the election commission.
Of course the official, public stance of the Hungarian government was different at the time...
I also largely agree with your reasoning. Perhaps 1921 was too early for a peaceful transfer of Burgenland to Austria, given the long history of being part of Hungary. However, this history does not apply to the Banat, the Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar only came under direct Hungarian rule in 1867.
Anyway, if Hungary remains stubborn, opposes political reforms, irritates Austria and gives minorities no rights, then indeed sooner or later a civil war could break out. Hm... interesting sequel to this TL.
About the Banat: you are right only about the southern most part - the former military border. The rest was reintegrated to Hungary much earlier (the era after 1848 was never considered legal by any hungarian authority)
But for the hungarian conservatives and nationalist whats important is that it was also part of the Kingdom of Hungary in the middle ages. They wiewed the Ottoman conquest as temporary occupation - not legal - so in their eyes the Banat has been legally continually been a part of Hungary since its foundation - for nearly a millenia.
As for reform: give it time and more sane voices will emerge and prevail in Hungary. As i see it OTL the problem was that before WWI Hungarians were able to comfortably dominate the kingdom of Hungary. No mass protests, terrorist acts by any of the minorities. Also barely any minority members in pairlaiment. To sum in up: they felt they were in control and didnt perceive any need - much less an imminent need - of change in regards the national minorities. They were preparing a law that would have significantly widen the suffrage before the war but that was because of the middle class demands.
Give time and a growing unrest by slovaks, romans, maybe some violance - give time for the minorities to actually become a real, immininent promlem to the hungarian elit and the voices advocating change will emerge. OTL the war acted as a catalyst - and here too it will speed up changes. At that point there will be voices that will be willing to give up territories to solidify the hungarian hold on pairlament. But that takes time - not necesserily a civil war. But if the austrians - or the ruler - pushes for change well before the hungarians think change is needed it will result in a civil war.