Triple Monarchy?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
An "all-Slavic" crown would be dysfunctional. Logistically, it would be absurd, and its inhabitants would quarrel ceaselessly. The Poles and Ukrainians were managing to haise rooves within the city limits of Lviv. Poles had sabotaged the united Czech programme in Hapsburg Silesia, and we all know the love-fest that goes on between Serbs and Croats.

Ideas of "Triple Monarchy" were always based on either Czechia or Croatia, not both. First it was the Czechs, who had a sense after 1867 that the Magyars and Poles, the other victims of '48, were having it all their way (whereas the Croats hadn't suffered from '48 in the same way, and weren't too hostile to the new 1868 settlement).

The constitutional crisis which was provoked by ( if I may be permitted my habitual Czech bias :p) the absurd stubborness of the Sudeten Germans even called the full sovereignty of the monarchy into question (Bismarck expressed concern at "the marginalisation of the empire's Germans" which suggested the Reich had a license to look after Volksdeutsch interests in other countries). Hence, later attempts to add a "third leg", which were based firstly on sticking it to Budapest and only secondly on the aspirations of the Slavs, ignored the vexed Czech question and settled on uncontroversial Croatia. The Slovenes, famous for being the only entirely inoffensive people in the Balkans, were sort of dragged along: the Illyrian Movement and later the National Right Party in Croatia tended to consider them Croats who lived in the mountains like a bunch of Germans; the Germans likewise to be Germans who talked funny, like Croats.
 

Deleted member 1487

The limited information that I have been able to find on the internet seems to indicate that all Slavs would be included. This doesn't help the Poles much because they already have defacto self governance under their nobility. The Czechs won't get all the land they want under the deal, as they were just as unreasonable as the Germans after a certain point, especially by demanding to include German majority areas in the area that they were to govern.

But over all the plan seems to be a form of federalization-lite, in which the various Slavic areas are giving self governance independent of each other (although Franz F. wanted to place the Capitol in Zagreb instead of Prague). However, Trialism would mean only one "united" Slavic group is allowed to decide on matters of foreign policy and national spending.
This means that the various nationalities can be played off against each other so that the German can get the desired result in the end vote.

For instance, when dealing with military matters, the Germans can throw pork barrel projects at the various Slavic groups to get their approval for expanding military spending; the Czechs get nice contracts for Skoda and the Poles get increased infrastructure and forts (which incidentally helps the Germans economically, as they can rely more on Galician grain instead of Hungarian). Throw in some money for naval bases, ships, and increased regiments in Southern Slav areas and they will come along too.

The Tri-crown could also include provisions about 2 out of 3 governments are able overrule the 3rd on national policy measures, allowing the Hungarian deadlock to finally be broken by working with the Slavs.

Of course I need more information as much of this is speculation.
 
The limited information that I have been able to find on the internet seems to indicate that all Slavs would be included. This doesn't help the Poles much because they already have defacto self governance under their nobility. The Czechs won't get all the land they want under the deal, as they were just as unreasonable as the Germans after a certain point, especially by demanding to include German majority areas in the area that they were to govern.

As I say, I like to play devil's advocate for the Czechs, who's pig-headedness seems to be taken as a matter of faith. Neither the Vienna government nor the population of the Burgenland and other German areas in Hungary had made much noise about 1867, and the Hungarian government for its right upheld the linguistic-cultural rights of its Germans pretty well. If Hungary was to be based on historical-geographic borders, why not Czechia? After all, economically and geographically, the Czech countries are very much a unit. And it wasn't like the Czechs had any option besides extensive minority rights for Germans. Bismarck was right there, being belligerant. Whereas the Vienna government had never cared about Polish attempts to attack everything from the Ukrainian church to the Ukrainian alphabet.

I do think the Sudetenland Germans, after their post-'48 period of supremacy, never got used to the idea of being equal with the Czechs, and this radicalised them steadily. Not to say they were all of that stripe, but the original DAP, founded by a Sudetenlander, claimed that "nationalism and socialism have come together first in the German borderlands"...

But over all the plan seems to be a form of federalization-lite, in which the various Slavic areas are giving self governance independent of each other (although Franz F. wanted to place the Capitol in Zagreb instead of Prague). However, Trialism would mean only one "united" Slavic group is allowed to decide on matters of foreign policy and national spending.

Hmm, that's an interesting and more workable idea. Quadrupalism had the threat of being like dualism only twice, although the Slavs are probably not going to be thrilled to share a vote, since their views will inevitably diverge. An obvious example: Czechs and Poles tend to have rather attitudes to Russia...

This means that the various nationalities can be played off against each other so that the German can get the desired result in the end vote.

For instance, when dealing with military matters, the Germans can throw pork barrel projects at the various Slavic groups to get their approval for expanding military spending; the Czechs get nice contracts for Skoda and the Poles get increased infrastructure and forts (which incidentally helps the Germans economically, as they can rely more on Galician grain instead of Hungarian). Throw in some money for naval bases, ships, and increased regiments in Southern Slav areas and they will come along too.

The Tri-crown could also include provisions about 2 out of 3 governments are able overrule the 3rd on national policy measures, allowing the Hungarian deadlock to finally be broken by working with the Slavs.

Of course I need more information as much of this is speculation.

It does sound like a fairly realistic scheme, unlike the USGA, which would run up against a crazy number of entrenched interests.
 
I agree that Wiking comes up with a quite reasonable and even comparetilvely realistic idea.

The main problem with these scheme is the Czech-German situation which remains tricky.

a) the 1910s aren't the 1860s and nationalism is approaching its climax in Europe. I guess it would be the Germans in Bohemia (thankfully my ancestors are Germans from Moravia) who would win the "terrible ethnic group" contest.

b) Czechs and Germans (at least in Bohemia) are having their "history" of issues by then. An all-Slav 3rd kingdom would already have complicated borders, how about a divorce there?
The interior administrative borders aren't that much of a problem if you share army and currency in a custom-union.

c) the Burgenland isn't comparable with the number/economy of Germans in Bohemia and Moravia. The Burgenland never had more than 300,000 inhabitants.

d) remaining Cisleithania , even if it kept the Italian and Slovenian regions, would be comparatively small. I am not sure if that were to the taste of the Vienna political establishment.

How ever Austria-Hungary were to survive, there would be difficult 1910s and 1920s ahead.
 

Susano

Banned
An "all-Slavic" crown would be dysfunctional. Logistically, it would be absurd, and its inhabitants would quarrel ceaselessly. The Poles and Ukrainians were managing to haise rooves within the city limits of Lviv. Poles had sabotaged the united Czech programme in Hapsburg Silesia, and we all know the love-fest that goes on between Serbs and Croats.
Well, yes. But youll have to combine Slavic peoples to gain a Slavic crown, be it an all-slavic Crown, a South Slavic Crown or a West Slavic crown. Thats kinda inevitable. Which is a further reason why full federalisation would be better, of course, but still, if one want a triple or quadruple monarchy, one has to combine slavic peoples.

The constitutional crisis which was provoked by ( if I may be permitted my habitual Czech bias :p) the absurd stubborness of the Sudeten Germans
To add counterbias ;) , I think the Sudeten German plans showed great willingness to compromise. They were ready to give the Czechs their stuff, but wanted to retain their own, which was only fair. It was the Czechs who wanted all or nothing - an united Charles university, and an united Bohemia+Moravia, but both Czech.

(Bismarck expressed concern at "the marginalisation of the empire's Germans" which suggested the Reich had a license to look after Volksdeutsch interests in other countries)
It had.
 
Well, yes. But youll have to combine Slavic peoples to gain a Slavic crown, be it an all-slavic Crown, a South Slavic Crown or a West Slavic crown. Thats kinda inevitable. Which is a further reason why full federalisation would be better, of course, but still, if one want a triple or quadruple monarchy, one has to combine slavic peoples.

True, true. I blame the Ausgleich for everything.

To add counterbias ;) , I think the Sudeten German plans showed great willingness to compromise. They were ready to give the Czechs their stuff, but wanted to retain their own, which was only fair. It was the Czechs who wanted all or nothing - an united Charles university, and an united Bohemia+Moravia, but both Czech.

Of course, the reality is that one can't say "Germans" were stubborn or "Czechs" were reasonable. Both sides had hardliners willing to sabotage any acceptable compromise, that was the problem. They (and we) may differ on exactly what constitutes acceptable, but that's what parliamentary democracy is for!


Oh, of course. I may be a Slavophile, but I'm also a pan-Germanist, remember? :D I'm just saying this called the foreign policy independence of Austria somewhat into question.
 

Susano

Banned
True, true. I blame the Ausgleich for everything.
True.
I blame Romy Schneider :D

Of course, the reality is that one can't say "Germans" were stubborn or "Czechs" were reasonable. Both sides had hardliners willing to sabotage any acceptable compromise, that was the problem. They (and we) may differ on exactly what constitutes acceptable, but that's what parliamentary democracy is for!
Well... yes. The question of course is always "Who is the electorate?" and that goes especially for questions of separation and territorial realignment. If the Bohemia Germans want to "leave" and have an own Austrian province, should the rest of Bohemia really have a "democratic" say in that? And this determination to keep Bohemia+Moravia together seems to have been a rather general Czech position, too, not just of the hardliners...

Oh, of course. I may be a Slavophile, but I'm also a pan-Germanist, remember? :D I'm just saying this called the foreign policy independence of Austria somewhat into question.
Ah, okay, fair enough :D Well, true. In this I blame Frederick II (of Hohenstaufen, not of Prussia) - without him, thered have been no need for German reunification and ultimately exclusion of Austria :D
 
True.
I blame Romy Schneider :D

Ze German joke, ja?


Well... yes. The question of course is always "Who is the electorate?" and that goes especially for questions of separation and territorial realignment. If the Bohemia Germans want to "leave" and have an own Austrian province, should the rest of Bohemia really have a "democratic" say in that? And this determination to keep Bohemia+Moravia together seems to have been a rather general Czech position, too, not just of the hardliners...

It's a tricky question. I admit that I engage in a bit of Slavophilic doublethink: I think everyone's problems would have been solved if the Germans had bee willing to trust to their cultural security in a Czech crown, and sort of ignore the fact that they had every right to actually think something else.

Ah, okay, fair enough :D Well, true. In this I blame Frederick II (of Hohenstaufen, not of Prussia) - without him, thered have been no need for German reunification and ultimately exclusion of Austria :D

Have I heard this somewhere before...?
 

Susano

Banned
Ze German joke, ja?
Ja. Ze actress Romy Schneider is known for exactly one role - as the protagonist of the 50s movie series Sissy, that is Empress Elizabeth of Austria, nee of Bavaria. Now, she didnt cause the Ausgleich of course, but she was an important mediatress (or at least a fleshy mediatress good for PR value as wed say nowadays) between the court and the Hungarian nobility...

It's a tricky question. I admit that I engage in a bit of Slavophilic doublethink: I think everyone's problems would have been solved if the Germans had bee willing to trust to their cultural security in a Czech crown, and sort of ignore the fact that they had every right to actually think something else.
Especially with the examples the Hungarians were delivering... but the doublethink is also that the Czechs were demanding autonomy for national/cultural reasons, while... denying is too strong but you know what I mean to the Bohemia Germans, claiming historical reasons for the borders of Bohemia - the same reasons why they ended up part of the Habsburg Monarchy in the first place!

Have I heard this somewhere before...?
I... dont know? But the decentralisation and cosnequent downfall of the HRE definitly started with him. The interregnum after him had as much to do with it of course, but he was also partly to blame for that, too.
 
Ja. Ze actress Romy Schneider is known for exactly one role - as the protagonist of the 50s movie series Sissy, that is Empress Elizabeth of Austria, nee of Bavaria. Now, she didnt cause the Ausgleich of course, but she was an important mediatress (or at least a fleshy mediatress good for PR value as wed say nowadays) between the court and the Hungarian nobility...

As, you strange, strange Germans.

Especially with the examples the Hungarians were delivering... but the doublethink is also that the Czechs were demanding autonomy for national/cultural reasons, while... denying is too strong but you know what I mean to the Bohemia Germans, claiming historical reasons for the borders of Bohemia - the same reasons why they ended up part of the Habsburg Monarchy in the first place!

Who's objecting to Hapsburg Czechia? Of course the Hapsburgs should rule it! Czechia as monarchy is a key part of the British world system, or we wouldn't have snow deep, crisp, and even. (If you can make cultural injokes, so can I!)

Who said the Hapsburg had to be all German, though? :p


I... dont know? But the decentralisation and cosnequent downfall of the HRE definitly started with him. The interregnum after him had as much to do with it of course, but he was also partly to blame for that, too.

Yes. I had. From you. Multiple times. ;)
 
Top