Q: How much could the Austrian-Hungarian Empire have expanded if the Central Powers had won WWI (without screwing its internal stability) ?

[Mario]

In an alt-scenario where the Central Powers would have won WWI, how much could have A-H expanded without risnking its complicated internal stability?

- They could have annexed some former territories in Northern Italy, as they handled them before and this did not affect much the nationalities balance.
- A new division of Congress Poland between A-H and the German Empire, like the Third Partition? Adding a lot of new Slavic population might not be a good idea, but they already did it in 1795.
- Parts of Serbia and/or Montenegro? It does not seem a good idea.
- Parts of Romania and/or Russian Bessarabia? Neither.
- Some exclaves in France/Belgium. It might seem a crazy idea, but IOTL Bavaria proposed the establishment of a Bavarian exclave in occupied Antwerp so....

 

[marathag]

Probably only Venetia, having lost that and Lombardy in 1866. Lombardy had more uprisings than their eastern neighbor while under Austrian control, and the Ventian dialect wasn't exactly Italian, either

I don't think A-H wanted any more Polish or what had been Ruthenian territory

 

[Deleted member 94680]

There were plans for a Central Powers aligned Kingdom of Poland Either under a German Princeling or the Austrian Emperor or an Austrian Archduke

 

[Help]

They planned to take a few mountains in Montenegro and mountain paths in the Carpathians from Romania. The rest would probably be puppets.

 

[Dominic]

Hard to see a significant expansion given the presence of German puppets on most of the borders. Taking Italian land seems a recipe for disaster, and it would be better to puppet Serbia/Montenegro. Perhaps a little colonial acquisition for prestige? Libya is within easy supply range of the Empire, and with a German victory perhaps the other Italian colonies will be available.

 

[Nivek]

how much could have A-H expanded without risnking its complicated internal stability?

Colonies, mostly colonies, the rest might be some border corrections so they can have even more defensible borders

 

[Help]

Colonies, mostly colonies, the rest might be some border corrections so they can have even more defensible borders

I think Austria didn't really care for colonies. Colonies when your country has perpetual ethnic tensions seems like a waste compared to indemnities. Puppets in the Balkans and possibly the East, though, could work well.

 

[Nivek]

I think Austria didn't really care for colonies. Colonies when your country has perpetual ethnic tensions seems like a waste compared to indemnities. Puppets in the Balkans and possibly the East, though, could work well.

They did, they were part of the eight-nation alliance, got concession in china and were pushing to get a navy long term could get more of china, that was to be something they wanted, maybe even convice minorities to emigrated them too

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Some mountains in Montenegro and the coast of Montenegro.
A strip of territory in Serbia immediately south of the Danube.
Rump Serbia-Montenegro as an Austrian puppet/vassal/satellite.
Carpathian passages annexed from Romania.
Possibly a protectorate over Albania.
Perhaps annexing back Friuli - or alternatively, establishing a puppet state in Veneto.

 

[Help]

They did, they were part of the eight-nation alliance, got concession in china and were pushing to get a navy long term could get more of china, that was to be something they wanted, maybe even convice minorities to emigrated them too

That is a very good point. Would they have the money for an actual colony(which without known resources would be a drain) as opposed to a trade city?

 

[Dominic]

That is a very good point. Would they have the money for an actual colony(which without known resources would be a drain) as opposed to a trade city?

Austria-Hungary was not a poor nation. A victory in WW1 would likely see its economy recover fairly quickly, and prior to the war it was growing at a good pace. It is resource rich and has enormous industrial potential which the structural challenges did not really inhibit. A large colonial empire is outside its reach for a range of reasons, but in the context of a victorious German alliance it would be quite capable of taking and controlling a modest number of colonies in Africa, and perhaps some smaller holdings beyond.

 

[Falecius]

Probably only Venetia, having lost that and Lombardy in 1866. Lombardy had more uprisings than their eastern neighbor while under Austrian control, and the Ventian dialect wasn't exactly Italian, either

Venetian is indeed "not exactly Italian" in purely linguistic terms (the same applies to Lombard however), and a political Venetian nationalism is indeed a thing. Now, I mean, it is.
In 1914 or 1918 there was, as far as I can tell, no political impulse whatsoever to establish a Venetian polity, and while the feeling of regional identity existed, it was firmly within the framework of the Italian national identity. No politically activable nostalgia for the Republic of Venice was available on the ground. Venetians of the time (except perhaps the small Slovenian and German-speaking minorities, both of which fairly inconsequental numerically and very peripheral geographically and economically) overwhelmingly saw themselves as Italians regardless of the (real) fact that most did not speak standard Italian in daily life. A Venetian Austrian Puppet would be a very hard sell to the vast majority of its inhabitants. Austria may be better off directly annexing the place, though it would still mean having to rule over a bitterly resentful populace. This, yes, which CAN be done, as Italy herself showed when, in victory, annexed territories full of people - Germanophone Tyroleans, Slovenes and Croats - who quite emphatically did not share the Italian national identity instead (and would be rather severely repressed for that). But is highly unadvisable.
If an Italian nation state survives, which I think it will, it will be more bitterly fixated on Veneto than France had ever fixated on Alsace-Lorraine.
By the way, the Northeast was particularly central to the self-definition of the Italian nation in this period, which understood itself, among other things, specifically as the heir of the Venetian Republic in its Adriatic projection (which was what led Italy into the war in the first place).

 

[Ariosto]

Contrary to what a lot of people are positing here, Austria-Hungary's desired annexations were fairly limited, and by and large were designed to establish more defensible boundaries along all its borders. The meat of its gains were meant to be through various puppet regimes such as Poland (which would be gifted Galicia-Lodomeria), the Ukraine, Romania, Serbia and Albania. However their apparent weakness in managing their own realm make it increasingly unlikely that they would have had the upper hand in any of the client regimes that were being set up, with the German Empire by the end largely ignoring Austria's wishes when it came to any settlement in the East.​

​

Austria-Hungary also had no desire for colonial territories, though not for lack of trying; attempts were made by the Austrian half to buy Sabah on Borneo and the Spanish Western Sahara, but each of those attempts were rebuffed by the Hungarian half which was skeptical of colonial enterprise. ​

 

[marathag]

In 1914 or 1918 there was, as far as I can tell, no political impulse whatsoever to establish a Venetian polity, and while the feeling of regional identity existed, it was firmly within the framework of the Italian national identity.

Enough of a threat that the Moose banned the language from daily use, written and even spoken. Only Standard Tuscan Italian was to be used

 

[marathag]

but each of those attempts were rebuffed by the Hungarian half

Which was SOP in the dual Monarchy, if one side wanted something, the other half was usually opposed

 

[lukedalton]

Enough of a threat that the Moose banned the language from daily use, written and even spoken. Only Standard Tuscan Italian was to be used

It was a politics for every italian dialect as to promote the more widespread use of the standard italian tuscan as local dialect were used a lot in the countryside and also as part of the general effort to increase alphabetization, any link to the venetian identiy was casual and frankly till the 90's and i mean 1990 there is no any serious separatist movement (if we don't consider Tyrol but it's another situation) and even that was more than a joke inflated by journalist than anything of really serious. Any Venetian nation created by A-H will have zero legitimancy and the second it's no more supported by Wien or Berlin, it will return in the fold.

Austria-Hungary was not a poor nation. A victory in WW1 would likely see its economy recover fairly quickly, and prior to the war it was growing at a good pace. It is resource rich and has enormous industrial potential which the structural challenges did not really inhibit. A large colonial empire is outside its reach for a range of reasons, but in the context of a victorious German alliance it would be quite capable of taking and controlling a modest number of colonies in Africa, and perhaps some smaller holdings beyond.

It's irrilevant if you were rich before, this kind of conflict messed with the economy of the winners for decades in OTL, doubt that A-H (or Germany) will be magically exempted by this for reason, especially if we add all the social and ethnic problem that not only will be increased by the war but probably will be even more than before...so, unless the war end in 1916 and with some luck (better a miracle) the empire continue a soldier on for a couple of decades supported by Germany, A-H will not survive for long the postwar world

 

[marathag]

any link to the venetian identiy was casual and frankly till the 90's and i mean 1990 there is no any serious separatist movement

Just as Scottish separatism increased once the Cold War was over, after a start in the 1970s

 

[lukedalton]

Just as Scottish separatism increased once the Cold War was over, after a start in the 1970s

even less, it was and still is more a fiscal thing

 

[Falecius]

Enough of a threat that the Moose banned the language from daily use, written and even spoken. Only Standard Tuscan Italian was to be used

Source? Slovenian and Croatian in border regions were banned from daily use, and so was German in Bozen, but Fascism never banned the spoken usage of what was considered Italian "dialects", which included Venetian (even if somewhat arbitrarily). This may be different for Friulan (it is divergent enough that even at the time it was acceptable, in Fascist-regime sponsored documents, to call it a "language") whose use was discouraged (but I am not aware of any "ban" on it).
Teaching of the separate Romance dialects of Italy in schools was even considered as a part of preserving the national heritage, and therefore was officially put in the books (though it probably never happened in actual schools) under Fascism. This proves more Fascism's inner inconsistencies more than anything else, but Venetian at the time was not seen as a "threat" by anyone, certainly not politically.
It was seen as a "dialect" of Italian, not as the prospective national language of a suppressed people attached to its Most Serene Identity. The latter view did emerge, but, as far as I know not earlier than the Seventies.

 

[Falecius]

Just as Scottish separatism increased once the Cold War was over, after a start in the 1970s

I am given to understand that Scottish nationalism has deeper roots than the Venetian one. For one, Scotland existed symbolically as constituent nation of the UK. Italy was not concevied as an aggregate of constituent nations, peoples, or regions whose indentities articulated the wider national one, in the ways the Second German Reich, the UK or Switzerland arguably were, but as an organic whole, under the model prevalent in France where regions were essentially a matter of geography (they did even exist as administrative/political units before 1970).
In Veneto there is certainly national sentiment now, although its translation into political separatism is not clearly articulated and actual advocates for independence are probably a lot fewer than in Scotland for instance. There was no such a sentiment at the time of WWI.