Es Geloybte Aretz Continuation Thread

Another question with the ottomans, wouldn't pan-islamic politics not become dominate? With de-colonisation muslims around the world will look to them for leadership and support.
 
Another question with the ottomans, wouldn't pan-islamic politics not become dominate? With de-colonisation muslims around the world will look to them for leadership and support.
Will they really? The Ottomans are still weak and the Ottomans will likely have a economy heavy dependent on oil, but at the same they will need those money to bribe domestic actors. Of course without the ethnic cleansing of Christians and Jews, the Ottomans will also keep these skilled worker in the country. At the same time without a ethnic cleansing of Armenians and Assyrians the Kurds will be in a weaker position, which would keep them more loyal. The rise Gulf states (which will happen unless Britain keep control over them) and their spread of Wahhabism, will likely push a increase loyalty of the local Christians, Jews, Pagans and Shia Muslims to the Sultan and Empire.
 
Will they really? The Ottomans are still weak and the Ottomans will likely have a economy heavy dependent on oil, but at the same they will need those money to bribe domestic actors
Underestimating the amount of money oil brings and over estimating the amount they will need to spend on non muslim subjects, its not a 50 50 split empire. Jews have no issue ottomans generally good to them. Wahhabism won't catch on due to the ottomans being caliph and being actively involved in religious discourse. Arabs will look to istanbul over nejd for religious leadership. Ottoman islam is alive and not been battered similar to ottoman politics.

The Ottomans are still weak and the Ottomans will likely have a economy heavy dependent on oil,
They control most of the oil. Little issue here.

The oil money will also allow a muslim middle class to develop making the empire less reliant on non-muslim middle class.


Kurds will be in a weaker position, which would keep them more loyal
Kurdish nationalism was never an issue for ottomans thats a republic of turkey issue. Kurds were fine with ottoman rule.
 
Suppose they are having a friendly chat when they are suddenly interrupted by the German ambassador. "Excuse me, gentlemen. I am very sorry to interrupt, but we need to talk about these new radio factories in Warsaw. Bad quality? On the contrary, the radios might not be top notch, but they are of excellent quality for such a modest price. And this is kind of the problem. You see, German companies don't appreciate this competition. And since we liberated you, you guys owe us a favour here..." What happens next is a better test of independence than wether maps of Europe show some territory labelled "KINGDOM OF POLAND".
hmm more likely that a German company would simply set up its own factory in Warsaw.
 
In the absence of an organisation like the LON, it might not be impossible that the IPU could evolve to cover some of the aspects that would have been covered by the LON and later UN in our world.
Dont know about the league but the IMO, ILO, WHO and several other agencies would be useful and with all of those some co-ordination would not go amiss.
 
Got a question whats the situation with the catholic church and italy? No facist italy means no vatican city, so has the catholic church moved to another country?
Complicated. More complicated that I would care to research in depth. But basically, the church is tearing itself apart in a three-way contest between its influential factions. Firstly, the Conciliari or 'Piononists', the faction that insists the Catholic Church is legitimately a superordinate political body with authority over the states of Europe and complete internal autonomy governed by an infallible Pope, and anyone who says otherwise is evil. These guys are a disappearing force, but because their greatest influence is in the curia, they retain disproportionate influence for a long time, and politicians who can curry favour with them tend to be able to get meaningful support espeially in very Catholic countries, so they remain serious players for the first half of the century.

Secondly, the Accomodationists or Concordatists, believers in the natural order of the ethnic nation state who see nothing wrong in principle with there being national Catholic churches under the theological hegemony of Rome. THey are most influential in national hierarchies and concern themselves with many of the practicalities that keep the church alive, and many managed to get along very well with their respective governments. The Polish concordate is counted among their triumphs, and the fact that Italy did not follow France into secularism, but embraced a 'Gallican' national church mode gave them leverage in the Vatican, too. THis faction ultimately will end up dominant.

Finally, there are the Modernists. THese people believe that the church has a valuable contribution to make beyond the scope of the nation state and that nationalism is, in fat, a kind of heresy, but that to do so, it must embrace modernism. They tend to be very evangelical about Catholic Social Teaching and see the Socialist INternational as a first-order competitor and model for ther own efforts. At their best, they underpin moderate conservative movements in many European states. At their worst, they're Catholic INtegralists covertly supporting terrorism where the state is anti-Catholic and repression where it is Catholic. THis faction never gets to dominate curia, but their writings are hugely influential.

And then there's a lot of people who just want to pray and do Christian stuff, but they don't amount to much politically.

Invent porn movies?
Like that did not occur to the second guy ever to hold a movie camera?
THough to be fair, the French ITTL make good porn. Great production values,

Another question with the ottomans, wouldn't pan-islamic politics not become dominate? With de-colonisation muslims around the world will look to them for leadership and support.
It is rather more complex. Yes, the Ottomans would love to play that role and with the greater stability that oil wealth and effective government brings in the second half of the century, they can to an extent. But it is a rather limited extent. Decolonisation is strongly tinged with ethnic nationalism in most of the MENA region, and that means it is often consciously Arab (or Berber, Persian, Azeri, Baluchi, Punjabi, Pashtun and what have you). The Ottoman Empire is no longer loudly and proudly Turkish, but at its core it is still pretty clearly so. THe attractiveness is limited. And in a world where Iran and the Gulf Emirates (in Britains pocket) do not coordinate price policy with the Ottomans or the Hejazi, oil wealth is not as spectacular as it could be. Enough to fund modern states, but not enough to fuel a global Islamist insurgency even if the wanted to. Which they don't. A century of humiliation has taught the Ottoman government to value the status quo. As powers go, they are the ultimate in stabilitarian.
 
Complicated. More complicated that I would care to research in depth. But basically, the church is tearing itself apart in a three-way contest between its influential factions. Firstly, the Conciliari or 'Piononists', the faction that insists the Catholic Church is legitimately a superordinate political body with authority over the states of Europe and complete internal autonomy governed by an infallible Pope, and anyone who says otherwise is evil. These guys are a disappearing force, but because their greatest influence is in the curia, they retain disproportionate influence for a long time, and politicians who can curry favour with them tend to be able to get meaningful support espeially in very Catholic countries, so they remain serious players for the first half of the century.

Secondly, the Accomodationists or Concordatists, believers in the natural order of the ethnic nation state who see nothing wrong in principle with there being national Catholic churches under the theological hegemony of Rome. THey are most influential in national hierarchies and concern themselves with many of the practicalities that keep the church alive, and many managed to get along very well with their respective governments. The Polish concordate is counted among their triumphs, and the fact that Italy did not follow France into secularism, but embraced a 'Gallican' national church mode gave them leverage in the Vatican, too. THis faction ultimately will end up dominant.

Finally, there are the Modernists. THese people believe that the church has a valuable contribution to make beyond the scope of the nation state and that nationalism is, in fat, a kind of heresy, but that to do so, it must embrace modernism. They tend to be very evangelical about Catholic Social Teaching and see the Socialist INternational as a first-order competitor and model for ther own efforts. At their best, they underpin moderate conservative movements in many European states. At their worst, they're Catholic INtegralists covertly supporting terrorism where the state is anti-Catholic and repression where it is Catholic. THis faction never gets to dominate curia, but their writings are hugely influential.

And then there's a lot of people who just want to pray and do Christian stuff, but they don't amount to much politically.
This isn't too shabby for an ATL assessment not researched in depth. :)

In our age, of course, there are also three main factions in the Catholic Church, but they are very, very different from those!

But this just goes to show profoundly the Great War reshaped our world. It destroyed the integrist states still surviving in the heart of the Catholic world (that is, in Europe) and replaced them with a volatile stewpot of ethno-states driven variously by strains of fascism, communism, or individualist liberalism, with the first driven from the field by 1945. None of these being particularly compatible with Catholic social teaching or even a basic Catholic mindset. This would, and in our TL, did, make impossible any tenable Concordatist faction, and it makes (made) even more anachronistic your Piononists. The only impulse of the latter that would survive long-term in our TL would be the one that survived in our TL - the centralizing governance impulse kicked off by Pius IX, which would have more resistance in the form of the Concordatists.

I am little more unsure about just what to make of your Modernists, and it's strange to think of any of them as integrist terrorists, even as a secondary impulse! Perhaps my historical imagination just isn't vivid or flexible enough? I would still have to think that there would be some flavor of this faction that would be genuinely liberal (as Newman understood the term) in their basic impulse, even in a Europe and North America as politically conservative as this world is . . . liberalism had been fermenting for too long, and had acquired too much potency, by the turn of the century to not be a real temptation for some Catholics no matter how the 20th century worked out.

I do think there would be a Second Vatican Council, at the first opportune moment after Rome managed to settle its sovereignty question with Italy (which I think would still look more or less like the Lateran Treaty of our TL, since the basic premises of the had been on the table since 1870*) . . at some point mid-century, possible even before the second Russo-German War, but not necessarily. But this would be a Vatican II as Pius XI or Pius XII would have conceived it: a much less ambitious sequel to the First Vatican Council, to tidy up the unfinished business left by Savoyard troops when they entered Rome in 1870. It would not generate any real rupture in the life of the Church.

___
* I don't know if this would be your direct response to @haider najib's original question, but such is what I would offer. Vittorio Emmanuel II had offered largely the same deal to Pio Nono before his troops bum rushed Rome, with even the entire Leonine City thrown in (Pius, of course, told him to go to hell), and the basics of the arrangement made too much sense to the interests of both the Papacy and the Savoyard state for it not to happen at some point; the real opposition was mainly on the Vatican's side, and (I think) simply needed the passage of time to drive home the unrealism of papal hopes that the Risorgimento could somehow be undone. I don't think I know enough about how you have Italian political history playing out to guess at just when and how it would happen, though.
 
Last edited:
This isn't too shabby for an ATL assessment not researched in depth. :)
...
I am little more unsure about just what to make of your Modernists, and it's strange to think of any of them as integrist terrorists, even as a secondary impulse! Perhaps my historical imagination just isn't vivid or flexible enough?
Think of the cozy relationship parts of the Catholic hierarchy of the United States had with the Fenians, or the way the church got along famously with armed traditionalists in Spain, Portugal, and Latin America. We are not talking about clerics leading the charge, just looking the other way and occasionally helping out with CHristian compassion and a place to hide, or an escape route.

I would still have to think that there would be some flavor of this faction that would be genuinely liberal (as Newman understood the term) in their basic impulse, even in a Europe and North America as politically conservative as this world is . . . liberalism had been fermenting for too long, and had acquired too much potency, by the turn of the century to not be a real temptation for some Catholics no matter how the 20th century worked out.
Liberalism, by the standards of the church, would be at home with both the Concordatists and the Modernists. There are different flavors to both. For every fire-breating anti-Socialist Modernist, there are several relaxed believers in freedom of worship and association and most Catholic political parties have more in common with Zentrum than with the Falange. THe goal of the Concordatists is to make Catholics full partners in the modern state without surrendering the church as an entity. They genuinely like the modern state, even in its democratic form. In fact, many like emocracies that make fewer claims on individual identity more.

I do think there would be a Second Vatican Council, at the first opportune moment after Rome managed to settle its sovereignty question with Italy (which I think would still look more or less like the Lateran Treaty of our TL, since the basic premises of the had been on the table since 1870*) . . at some point mid-century, possible even before the second Russo-German War, but not necessarily. But this would be a Vatican II as Pius XI or Pius XII would have conceived it: a much less ambitious sequel to the First Vatican Council, to tidy up the unfinished business left by Savoyard troops when they entered Rome in 1870. It would not generate any real rupture in the life of the Church.

___
* I don't know if this would be your direct response to @haider najib's original question, but such is what I would offer. Vittorio Emmanuel II had offered largely the same deal to Pio Nono before his troops bum rushed Rome, with even the entire Leonine City thrown in (Pius, of course, told him to go to hell), and the basics of the arrangement made too much sense to the interests of both the Papacy and the Savoyard state for it not to happen at some point; the real opposition was mainly on the Vatican's side, and (I think) simply needed the passage of time to drive home the unrealism of papal hopes that the Risorgimento could somehow be undone. I don't think I know enough about how you have Italian political history playing out to guess at just when and how it would happen, though.
I assume a similar deal will at some point be struck, but that is what I meant by more thoroughly research. I simply don't have the time to dive into the groups, individuals, organisations and trends that shaped polic IOTL and how they would go ITTL. I am sure the Italian state - a moderate constitutional monarchy with strong traditionalist parties - will make such a deal. BUt I have no real grasp of when and who with. Some Concordatist pope, sometime after 1930, is my guess.
 
Think of the cozy relationship parts of the Catholic hierarchy of the United States had with the Fenians, or the way the church got along famously with armed traditionalists in Spain, Portugal, and Latin America.
Ah. OK. That makes a little more sense.

For every fire-breating anti-Socialist Modernist, there are several relaxed believers in freedom of worship and association and most Catholic political parties have more in common with Zentrum than with the Falange.
No doubt. But then, the Falange in OTL was the least Catholic component of Franco's coalition.

It doesn't seem too hard to me to project out what this would look like the south German states/principalities, or even for that matter, Austria-Hungary. But it's harder to get a handle on what it looks like in France, a France that was never shattered by the Grea War.

I assume a similar deal will at some point be struck, but that is what I meant by more thoroughly research. I simply don't have the time to dive into the groups, individuals, organisations and trends that shaped polic IOTL and how they would go ITTL. I am sure the Italian state - a moderate constitutional monarchy with strong traditionalist parties - will make such a deal. BUt I have no real grasp of when and who with. Some Concordatist pope, sometime after 1930, is my guess.
No, that sounds about right. It's the main ingredient needed for the recipe, and it's sufficient passage of time to shift the thinking inside the Vatican. All that is needed then is a reasonably strong and self-confident Italian government of the day, which is certainly what Mussolini was in the late 20's.
 
The university enjoys imperial protection, and it's liable to end up among the leading institutions in Prussia. But I don't foresee anything exceptional happening.
University of Breslau, Department of Physics, Untergrund Annex, 25 Jul 1938 [post canon]
We have made it, Dr Schrödinger, a replication number of 1.000.., e^0, Eigenwert!

Purr ?

Quiet, Maud.

Sir ?

Inform Dr Meitner. Inform the Emperor.
 
Last edited:
No doubt. But then, the Falange in OTL was the least Catholic component of Franco's coalition.
In the rather earthy tones of Bavaria, the Falange were people that the Catholic Church should not even have looked at with its arse in a perfect world. But one arranges oneself with reality. And we aren't going anywhere near Ustasha-levels of awful ITTL.

It doesn't seem too hard to me to project out what this would look like the south German states/principalities, or even for that matter, Austria-Hungary. But it's harder to get a handle on what it looks like in France, a France that was never shattered by the Grea War.
France and the church - that is a long and painful story. And it is never going to get good after Clemenceau, though it does get better. France is the church's estranged eldest daughter, a dangerous precedent to people everywhere that you can be Catholic and not beholden to the church. And the Vatican hates it. Sure people make arrangements, but the French situation is literally the reason why Piononists and Concordatists are so bitterly opposed to each other. Most everywhere else the church either accepts it is in a minority position (Prussia, Britain, the USA) or gets a generous deal (Italy, Spain, Austria). But France rankles.

No, that sounds about right. It's the main ingredient needed for the recipe, and it's sufficient passage of time to shift the thinking inside the Vatican. All that is needed then is a reasonably strong and self-confident Italian government of the day, which is certainly what Mussolini was in the late 20's.
I have a very hard time figuring the trajectory of Italy. Without WWI and the disastrous fallout of that 'victory', I suppose the liberal elites of the north will stay in power - until other groups squeeze them out. But how exactly? I know too little.
 
Think of the cozy relationship parts of the Catholic hierarchy of the United States had with the Fenians, or the way the church got along famously with armed traditionalists in Spain, Portugal, and Latin America. We are not talking about clerics leading the charge, just looking the other way and occasionally helping out with CHristian compassion and a place to hide, or an escape route.



Liberalism, by the standards of the church, would be at home with both the Concordatists and the Modernists. There are different flavors to both. For every fire-breating anti-Socialist Modernist, there are several relaxed believers in freedom of worship and association and most Catholic political parties have more in common with Zentrum than with the Falange. THe goal of the Concordatists is to make Catholics full partners in the modern state without surrendering the church as an entity. They genuinely like the modern state, even in its democratic form. In fact, many like emocracies that make fewer claims on individual identity more.



I assume a similar deal will at some point be struck, but that is what I meant by more thoroughly research. I simply don't have the time to dive into the groups, individuals, organisations and trends that shaped polic IOTL and how they would go ITTL. I am sure the Italian state - a moderate constitutional monarchy with strong traditionalist parties - will make such a deal. BUt I have no real grasp of when and who with. Some Concordatist pope, sometime after 1930, is my guess.
The Great War IOTL delayed the talks that would ultimately lead to the Lateran Treaties, so I'd guess that the twenties are more likely.
 
In the rather earthy tones of Bavaria, the Falange were people that the Catholic Church should not even have looked at with its arse in a perfect world. But one arranges oneself with reality. And we aren't going anywhere near Ustasha-levels of awful ITTL.

France and the church - that is a long and painful story. And it is never going to get good after Clemenceau, though it does get better. France is the church's estranged eldest daughter, a dangerous precedent to people everywhere that you can be Catholic and not beholden to the church. And the Vatican hates it. Sure people make arrangements, but the French situation is literally the reason why Piononists and Concordatists are so bitterly opposed to each other. Most everywhere else the church either accepts it is in a minority position (Prussia, Britain, the USA) or gets a generous deal (Italy, Spain, Austria). But France rankles.

I have a very hard time figuring the trajectory of Italy. Without WWI and the disastrous fallout of that 'victory', I suppose the liberal elites of the north will stay in power - until other groups squeeze them out. But how exactly? I know too little.
1. I agree with all this Carlton, with just one modest nitpick. "France is the church's estranged eldest daughter, a dangerous precedent to people everywhere that you can be Catholic and not beholden to the church." There was a sense in which this was true after 1904, but we also have to say that life for a devout Catholic was somewhat more circumscribed than it was in (say) Tyrol, Andalusia, Tuscany, Baden, or even, for that matter, New York. The obliteration of Catholic religious order life stung deeply, as did the wrecking of Catholic education; Catholicism became somewhat disabling for certain civil service and army careers. This is certainly not the Diocletian Persecution, but it's not quite a model that Catholics in other countries wanted to look at and think was desirable. Anti-clericalists, of course, thought differently.

In OTL, of course, the Great War provided the "it gets better," thanks to the witness of thousands of secular priests serving in the trenches, and the French Church's emphatic support for the war, which softened even some anti-clericalist hearts. That does not happen here, but it seems inevitable that a center right government will eventually come to power, and they might ease the lot of Catholics, though likely only at the margins. It is hard to see the 1904 laws being repealed, unless the Third Republic collapses.

The Mexican Revolution is still bound to turn anti-clericalist nasty at some point, and then the Vatican will find something new that should rankle even more.

2. I don't have a strong enough familiarity with Italian political history to say much here, either. Straight line projections of Italian politics under Crispi are not satisfactory, but then what changes, and when, exactly, without WW1? There's no room for irredentist payoffs outside possibly Libya and Abyssinia, the agricultural sector remains a disaster area, and the problems for industrial labor were getting worse, not better. Brooklyn might continue to do well out of it, though...

3. I loved the crack about the Falange.
 
Sorry im an idiot so i need help, how is the situation with poles please i understand their not a 'accepted culture' but will get equal rights eventually as with polish signs but can i get a bit more as im stupid.

Is the experience of poles in Germany similar to that of african americans in pre civil rights america? Im trying to find what the polish spot in the germany society is all i find its prussia fuck the poles policy so is it a fair comparison or not, as i definelty feel there something wrong with it. Is it akin to more of the irish with the UK, they are still irish but Anglicanized alot?

Moreover how does equal rights for poles (yes i know treating them equal but in what ways) poles are not a minority spread across all of germany but located in eastern germany. So how will language equality? Will it be across all of germany or just prussia? Will it be made a official language as in government etc can be user in courts? Will germans have to learn polish as well? If poles get equal rights will they have a irish situation where they keep their culture but adopt the dominant language? Lastly will there still there still a racists and unofficial racist policies towards poles using america as an example war on drugs etc target minorities more.

Sorry im on a polish binge got some smaller questions.

Are poles allowed in the german army? If so how is it for them?

Will any noticeable differences between german poles and polish poles?

Lastly when poles gain political equality will thr french and danish minorities then demand equality?
 
Sorry im an idiot so i need help, how is the situation with poles please i understand their not a 'accepted culture' but will get equal rights eventually as with polish signs but can i get a bit more as im stupid.

Is the experience of poles in Germany similar to that of african americans in pre civil rights america? Im trying to find what the polish spot in the germany society is all i find its prussia fuck the poles policy so is it a fair comparison or not, as i definelty feel there something wrong with it. Is it akin to more of the irish with the UK, they are still irish but Anglicanized alot?
THe situation of the Poles in Germany is - complicated. African Americans are not entirely a bad comparison but things are rather different in many ways. There are three main issues at play. First: The Poles of Germany have equal civil rights. They are German citizens, and withut any plebiscites and territorial losses, that is not going to change. All the nastiness that is deployed against them cannot go against this fundamntal fact because no matter how bad German governments get ITTL, they aren't Nazis. If you were born in Breslau, it doesn't matter if you call it Wroclaw, your passport says 'Prussian' (it won't say German until the 1950s, though that is an anachronism of its own)
Second, they have the option of assimilating and many take it. Speak proper German, and you don't even have to change your name or convert to Lutheranism (THat was true IOTL as well, BTW - if a man named Odilo Globocnik could make career in the SS, clearly it wasn't about 'race' as such). And thirdly, the effort to make Poles' lives unpleasant has a soecific political purpse which is 'denationalisation' - to assimilate them, basically. Like the Danes and Alsatians, only more so. That is very different from African Americans who even their political allies often thought shouldn't really be in the country.

Moreover how does equal rights for poles (yes i know treating them equal but in what ways) poles are not a minority spread across all of germany but located in eastern germany. So how will language equality? Will it be across all of germany or just prussia? Will it be made a official language as in government etc can be user in courts? Will germans have to learn polish as well? If poles get equal rights will they have a irish situation where they keep their culture but adopt the dominant language? Lastly will there still there still a racists and unofficial racist policies towards poles using america as an example war on drugs etc target minorities more.
Are you familiar with the way Danish is a minority langage in northern Schleswig? Sort of like that. THere is no second official language throughout the Empire, but there are areas where biinugalism is an established fact, and supprted at the government's expense. In this case also in cooperation with the Polish government across the border who supports POlish schools and accepts their graduates into its universities (though it takes a fierce and ardent patriot spirit to choose a Polish school and Lodz Polytechnic over a Gymnasium and Berlin University if you have a genuine choice).

And yes, being Polish (as in, consciously monolingual) in Germany will make you the target of all kinds of officious harrassment and the scars remain. To this day, 'proper German' remain the racist stand-by through which to filter out the undesirable (though with increasing numbers of immigrants from elsewhere, the Polish minority isn't really a major target any more)

Sorry im on a polish binge got some smaller questions.

Are poles allowed in the german army? If so how is it for them?
'Allowed' is not the word I would choose. Of course they are liable for conscription, and the experience can be decidedly sucky. If you are a rural Polish kid and not particularly invested in politics, it can be okay. Prussian officers love these Poles the way Anglo-Indians did their 'native troops' , and will happily use them in all kinds of menial roles 'suited to their simple loyalty'. You may well get a useful induction into the modern world, electric light, indoor plumbing, written materials, timetabling etc, and brush up what little German your Volksschule teacher beat into you. It can end with a factory job or an apprenticeship, a way out of the village. But if you have any prode in your Polish identity - as many do - it will go very poorly for you. The German army, unlike the k.u.k. one, makes no accomodation for inguistic minorities.


Will any noticeable differences between german poles and polish poles?
Basically, Polish Poles are Poles by default. They love their country, but it's a thing like the air and the grass. German Poles are Poles by choice - they could have become Germans, but decided not to. There are hundreds of little differences in prosperity levels, adjustments to modernity, attitudes towards religion (the Catholic Chrch in Germany is a different world from the Polish church), but this is the big one.
Lastly when poles gain political equality will thr french and danish minorities then demand equality?
The fight for equality of all three groups is coterminous. All three make different advances at different times because of the political context. The Alstaian French are first to gain linguistic rights, but last to get any decent political representation because, well, France. The Danes fare best because, you know, Denmark, no big deal. THe Poles are the largest group and the ones most widely regarded with racist disdain, but they are also best organised and connected, and they have influential friends in Prussia.
 
Thanks for answering

General if anyone can answer how important was franz joseph to the unity of the empire were the various groups of people fond of him i read his death during ww1 was a major blow to austria hungary.

Main question franz joesph i heard was very important to the national unity of austria hungary with his death will the importance of Habsburg family remain with them being the focal point of national unity or will it move to something else?
 
Thanks for answering

General if anyone can answer how important was franz joseph to the unity of the empire were the various groups of people fond of him i read his death during ww1 was a major blow to austria hungary.

Main question franz joesph i heard was very important to the national unity of austria hungary with his death will the importance of Habsburg family remain with them being the focal point of national unity or will it move to something else?
He was incredibly important - he was the impersonification of the Empire. Its also very important that he wasnt divisive - he wasnt seen as favouring any nations so there was no personal animosity between him and any of his people. The same was not true for FF who had a famously bad relation with the hungarians and looking at his planned reforms - despite others seeing him as the potentional saviour of A-H - I see him as a figure who would have likely failed in this. He was not a diplomatic person and his reforms were bound to alienate a lot of nationalities - far from only the hungarians. Also one of the things that gave the Empire its temporary stability was that though every one of its people wanted to change it in some way - usually in their own favour of course - everyone could hope that this would happen. Because reform was coming sooner or later. But when that long hoped for reform arrived (with FF) and it turned out that it wasnt what they hoped for - and for example Im pretty sure that besides the hungarians the czechs and the poles wouldnt be too happy - to say the least - about the changes (looking at the plans for greater austria) - I think that a very serious civil war was in order for Austria if FF tries any of that - and again not only against the hungarians.
 
Top