Q: Why Versailles was territorially harsher with Austria-Hungary than Germany?

[Mario]

From a territorial point of view, the terms of Versailles were harsher and more unfair (if the ethnicity principles of the era meant to be applied) for Austria and Hungary than to Germany.

If we do not consider the Alsatians 'fully German' (something that even the German Empire hesitated to do), Germany hardly lost any significant ethnic German territory (just minor parts like Eupen-Malmedy, Danzig and some districts in Northern Schleswig and Posen) while both Austria and Hungary lost important territories where German Austrians and Hungarias lived i.e. South Tyrol, the Sudetes or Lower Styria in the first case or Vojvodina, southern Slovakia and parts of Transylvania in the second one.

I think there was no real need to 'satisfy' the territorial claims of newly created states like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia. Czechoslovakia could have worked anyway without the southern Sudetes or the southern Magyar districts of Slovakia, and the same for Yugoslavia regarding Lower Styria and most of Vojvodina. Italy could have received more parts of Dalmatia rather than the South Tyrol.

 

[wcv215]

Versailles did nothing to Austria.

 

[Alternator]

The Hapsburg Empire was collapsing and unable to really contest territorial claims, the German Empire was stable and could defend itself.

 

[marathag]

Versailles did nothing to Austria.

True, but Saint-Germain sure did

 

[Ambusher11]

Italy could have received more parts of Dalmatia rather than the South Tyrol.

The problem is that the British and the French didn't think that Italy deserved much, because of Italy not declaring war on the Entente's main enemy, Germany, until August 27, 1916. Hence them therefore letting Woodrow Wilson hold Italian ambitions in check in the Adriatic by advocating self-determination of the area in accordance with point nine of his Fourteen Points.

 

[AStudentOfHistory]

Versailles only impacted Germany. St-Germain was for Austria, Trianon for Hungary and Lausanne for Turkey (the original treaty for the Ottoman Empire, the much more punitive Sevres treaty, thanks in strong part due to Ataturk's military ventures, didn't occur).

 

[Monk78]

The problem is that the British and the French didn't think that Italy deserved much, because of Italy not declaring war on the Entente's main enemy, Germany, until August 27, 1916. Hence them therefore letting Woodrow Wilson hold Italian ambitions in check in the Adriatic by advocating self-determination of the area in accordance with point nine of his Fourteen Points.

I think they were fully justified in their attitude towards Italy

 

[Mario]

The problem is that the British and the French didn't think that Italy deserved much, because of Italy not declaring war on the Entente's main enemy, Germany, until August 27, 1916. Hence them therefore letting Woodrow Wilson hold Italian ambitions in check in the Adriatic by advocating self-determination of the area in accordance with point nine of his Fourteen Points.

Then, even more reasons for not awarding them the South Tyrol (with Trieste and Trentino would have been enough).

Versailles only impacted Germany. St-Germain was for Austria, Trianon for Hungary and Lausanne for Turkey (the original treaty for the Ottoman Empire, the much more punitive Sevres treaty, thanks in strong part due to Ataturk's military ventures, didn't occur).

I know there were separate treaties, but I mostly meant to the original terms conceived by the allies in the aftermath (the story for the Ottomans was more separate). As other users said, maybe because Germany remained and the Austrian-Hungary Empire fully collapsed.

 

[cjc]

Manly because there were more allies that need to be weworded in that area then with Germany.

 

[Aslangeo]

Germany was ethnically homogenous - the parts taken away at Versailles were mostly inhabited by national minorities, Poles , Danes and French, although some German minorities remained in these areas

Austria Hungary was a multi ethnic conglomerate empire which had centrifugal forces active for decades. At the end of WWI the different Nations of the AH empire sought self determination, however none of these nations was ethnically homogenous leading to restive minorities, some of which had or felt that they had a bad deal.

Hungary is still pretty angry about the treaty of Trianon to this day

A question would be if the nations of Austria Hungary had wanted to form some sort of federation, either as a continuing Habsburg monarchy or as a confederation of republics, would the victorious allies would allow it?

 

[Mikestone8]

All the WW1 peace treaties were essentially the same - chop off the ethnic minorities in the name of "nationality" except where this would benefit one of the losers, in which case some other principle - strategic, economic, whatever - would be conveniently found to be more important in that particular case.

So Russia, which had more minorities than Germany, lost more territory at Brest-Litovsk than Germany dod at Versailles, whle Austria and Hungary, at St Germain and Trianon, lost more than Russia did at Brest-Litovsk.

 

[lukedalton]

I think they were fully justified in their attitude towards Italy

Honestly it was more: we (and nations that really don't clash with our interest or that are under our influence like Greece) get the all you can eat buffet, you (that can be a potential rival in the zone) must follow what the idiotic crusander say, so we can also you as distraction as while he is distracted with you don't look at us

The problem is that the British and the French didn't think that Italy deserved much, because of Italy not declaring war on the Entente's main enemy, Germany, until August 27, 1916. Hence them therefore letting Woodrow Wilson hold Italian ambitions in check in the Adriatic by advocating self-determination of the area in accordance with point nine of his Fourteen Points.

It was much much more because Italy was seen a postwar potential rival so limiting their gain and mantain a certain level of balance (at least in theory) in the zone was the main objective of their politics.

Then, even more reasons for not awarding them the South Tyrol (with Trieste and Trentino would have been enough).

South Tyrol mean having the best defensive line of the continent in the north but was also seen as a very doable concession as it doesn't involve increase the economic and strategic influnce of Italy in the balkans like controlling Fiume or other ports in Dalmatia.
Italy on the other side was ready to give up South Tyrol to Austria in exchange for other concession but political reason nixed the idea; the political reason were:
- supporting France that ok with weakean Austria as much as possible in case a succesfulll union with Germany is achieved, as Rome thought that by supporting them they will have received support in other area
- with Wilson stonewalling in the Adriatic, there is no way that the italian goverment give up South Tyrol

 

[Thoresby]

From a territorial point of view, the terms of Versailles were harsher and more unfair (if the ethnicity principles of the era meant to be applied) for Austria and Hungary than to Germany.

If we do not consider the Alsatians 'fully German' (something that even the German Empire hesitated to do), Germany hardly lost any significant ethnic German territory (just minor parts like Eupen-Malmedy, Danzig and some districts in Northern Schleswig and Posen) while both Austria and Hungary lost important territories where German Austrians and Hungarias lived i.e. South Tyrol, the Sudetes or Lower Styria in the first case or Vojvodina, southern Slovakia and parts of Transylvania in the second one.

I think there was no real need to 'satisfy' the territorial claims of newly created states like Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia. Czechoslovakia could have worked anyway without the southern Sudetes or the southern Magyar districts of Slovakia, and the same for Yugoslavia regarding Lower Styria and most of Vojvodina. Italy could have received more parts of Dalmatia rather than the South Tyrol.

Partly because by the time the treaties were being written Austria-Hungary was dead, it had splintered into it's constituent parts and large parts of St-Germain was simply recognising facts on the ground. In contrast there was a functioning coherent German state and while it was unable to fight at the moment even the most blinkered Allied leader could recognise that doing something really extreme, like the Oder-Neisse line would require Allied troops on the ground to enforce it which no one wanted to do.

 

[Mario]

In the case of Austria, I think maybe the view of that an eventual Anschluss would come at the future at some point, once the Allies would reapproch a democratic Weimar Germany and grievances would be somehow over, made Vienna to care less about territorial losses, but the territorial punishment to Hungary has no pragmatic grounds: Hungary would be never a power again without Austria and there were no real reasons to strip that many regions inhabited by Magyar population just to satisfy other states which were not that relevant for the Allies at the end like Yugoslavia, Romania and Czechoslovakia.

 

[Thoresby]

In the case of Austria, I think maybe the view of that an eventual Anschluss would come at the future at some point, once the Allies would reapproch a democratic Weimar Germany and grievances would be somehow over, made Vienna to care less about territorial losses, but the territorial punishment to Hungary has no pragmatic grounds: Hungary would be never a power again without Austria and there were no real reasons to strip that many regions inhabited by Magyar population just to satisfy other states which were not that relevant for the Allies at the end like Yugoslavia, Romania and Czechoslovakia.

On the other hand, Hungary had been an enemy combatant and Romania and Serbia had been part of the Entente, they had shed enormous amounts of blood on the same side as Britain and France so if they wanted some territories to which they had a semi plausible claim then there was no reason not to give it to them.

 

[Rider]

On the other hand, Hungary had been an enemy combatant and Romania and Serbia had been part of the Entente, they had shed enormous amounts of blood on the same side as Britain and France so if they wanted some territories to which they had a semi plausible claim then there was no reason not to give it to them.

Not to mention that Budapest had a long history of intense Magyarisation policies, which disillusioned its Slovak, Croat, Serb and (especially) Romanian minorities. Austria was not necessarily a paradise either, but their discriminative policies are not considered to have been as bad.

 

[Salvador79]

Saint-Germain and Trianon were harsher on Austria and Hungary respectively than Versailles was on Germany (or Neuilly-sur-Seine on Bulgaria) because Austria-Hungary had fallen apart on its own (well, yes, with a lot of diplomatic help from the Entente, but still mostly on its own) while Germany and Bulgaria had not.

 

[Clandango]

On the other hand, Hungary had been an enemy combatant and Romania and Serbia had been part of the Entente, they had shed enormous amounts of blood on the same side as Britain and France so if they wanted some territories to which they had a semi plausible claim then there was no reason not to give it to them.

Not to mention that Budapest had a long history of intense Magyarisation policies, which disillusioned its Slovak, Croat, Serb and (especially) Romanian minorities. Austria was not necessarily a paradise either, but their discriminative policies are not considered to have been as bad.

Maybe iffy with Romania and the Hungarians were so angry partially because the Principality of Transylvania had been the only Hungarian run state for centuries. When the Habsburgs were first given the Hungarian crown it was under the believe they would help regain Hungary from Turkish control, but they just used Royal Hungary as a cash cow and buffer zone for centuries. The large areas that Hungarians, Serbians, and Wallachian settled in the south of the Kingdom of Hungary also moved in after wars and such slaughtered the Magyars living there. Another thing about Trianon and such was how the Entene gave maximum claims to neighbors against Hungary and when the Entente promised to have Romania to leave the Hungarian lands outside of Transylvania they had been occupying if the Hungarians withdrew from Slovakia they did, but the Romanians refused to leave. As for Magyarization, it was indeed there and the Hungarians weren’t the most inclusive perhaps, but having the official language changed to Hungarian was far better than the previous official language in Croatia and Hungary of Latin. Plus the Germans did seem to want to slice up Hungary. I will need to check out he book in Hungarian history again that mentions a proposal to slice up Hungary into five crownlands, though only mentions the proposed capitals.

 

[Rider]

Maybe iffy with Romania and the Hungarians were so angry partially because the Principality of Transylvania had been the only Hungarian run state for centuries. When the Habsburgs were first given the Hungarian crown it was under the believe they would help regain Hungary from Turkish control, but they just used Royal Hungary as a cash cow and buffer zone for centuries. The large areas that Hungarians, Serbians, and Wallachian settled in the south of the Kingdom of Hungary also moved in after wars and such slaughtered the Magyars living there. Another thing about Trianon and such was how the Entene gave maximum claims to neighbors against Hungary and when the Entente promised to have Romania to leave the Hungarian lands outside of Transylvania they had been occupying if the Hungarians withdrew from Slovakia they did, but the Romanians refused to leave. As for Magyarization, it was indeed there and the Hungarians weren’t the most inclusive perhaps, but having the official language changed to Hungarian was far better than the previous official language in Croatia and Hungary of Latin. Plus the Germans did seem to want to slice up Hungary. I will need to check out he book in Hungarian history again that mentions a proposal to slice up Hungary into five crownlands, though only mentions the proposed capitals.

Interesting, didn't know about that. Nonetheless, regardless of 'slaughters' of the previous centuries, the Magyarisation process was indeed a significant factor by the late 1800s and early 1900s, particularly for Trainsleithania's Slavic minorities. See for example Wawro's book 'A Mad Catastrophe' for a summary of some of Budapest's discriminatory practices. Many contemporary authors, such as R. W. Seton-Watson (who was not impartial, granted), also negatively compared Hungary's treatment of its minorities to Austria's.

 

[Clandango]

Interesting, didn't know about that. Nonetheless, regardless of 'slaughters' of the previous centuries, the Magyarisation process was indeed a significant factor by the late 1800s and early 1900s, particularly for Trainsleithania's Slavic minorities. See for example Wawro's book 'A Mad Catastrophe' for a summary of some of Budapest's discriminatory practices. Many contemporary authors, such as R. W. Seton-Watson (who was not impartial, granted), also negatively compared Hungary's treatment of its minorities to Austria's.

Oh yes, Hungary was rather determined to get its language out there, though it varied in whether or not the people in the Hungarian government wanted it to only be Hungarian or if people could speak their own language in their free time. Having everyone being given schooling and learnt he language of the majority of country in itself wasn’t too bad I would say, though back then a lot of languages were just solidifying. Think it was in that book I read where the person codifying or pushing the Croatian language deliberate chose the dialect closest to Serbian. They kept their own Latin script of course, and they used Latin longer than the Hungarians did. As good a lingua Franca as any I suppose, at least back when they were a bunch of Military Frontiers with Germans of all strips coming in to settle and fight. Anyways, might you be able to list some of the examples given in the book? And we might not want to overstate Austria’s love for minorities, as it seemed that some of their support for them was to spite the Hungarians.