Was the collapse of Austria-Hungary inevitable?

[Bolt451]

I'm writing something at the moment which ends roughly in a draw between The Western Powers (minus USA) and the Central Powers and its got me pondering were the ethnic tensions in Austria-Hungary too great for it to survive, even without Versailles (and Wilson)

A lot of Central Power victory TLs have it reforming into something like a Danubian Federation. How likely is that? (especially of there's no reparations being paid to it)

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

No. Not inevitable. A victory in WWI or no war at all helps them out. For how long I would not know... but some sort of federalisation needs to happen.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

There will be plenty of differing views on this, but here’s my tuppence-worth...

It pretty much depends on your PoD and the following course of the War.

IMHO the Austro-Hungarian government and populace held together pretty well until late on in the War and only then due to the government’s mismanagement of the constraints of the situation did it all fall apart. The strategic situation, the mis-planning of Austria’s deployments and commitments were all major factors, but it was the intrusion of the government’s agencies into the private lives of the Austrian citizenry which was the real nail in the coffin. Ironically, it was due to the populace’s initial trust in the government that the later measures were so catastrophic in their effects.

 

[Peffy]

Well, the Hungarian part of the government was rather...shitty. They forced some 10 million non-hungarians to learn
their language, change their names into hungarian sounding ones, and all sorts of denationalization measures.
Furthermore, their economic policies were returning to the 14th century, with most land being stolen and given to hungarian nobles. All this didn't win them much support among the oppressed.

The Austrian side was not affected by the need to ethnically purge the non-germans. They kinda needed the others to make integration by Germany less pleasant and plausible.
With less oppression and somewhat better standards of living and education, the Austrian side might have remained intact, even after a referendum. The Hungarian side would have likely burned in civil wars.

 

[Mikestone8]

There will be plenty of differing views on this, but here’s my tuppence-worth...

It pretty much depends on your PoD and the following course of the War.

IMHO the Austro-Hungarian government and populace held together pretty well until late on in the War and only then due to the government’s mismanagement of the constraints of the situation did it all fall apart. The strategic situation, the mis-planning of Austria’s deployments and commitments were all major factors, but it was the intrusion of the government’s agencies into the private lives of the Austrian citizenry which was the real nail in the coffin. Ironically, it was due to the populace’s initial trust in the government that the later measures were so catastrophic in their effects.

And even despite all that, they *still* didn't fall apart until

a) Germany had asked for an armistice - so everybody knew the war was lost.

b) The situation had become hopeless in a purely military sense, with the collapse of the Balkan Front leaving their long southern border wide open.

At the end of the day Austria-Hungary fell because of plain, old fashioned military defeat - though the other problems no doubt helped bring this about.

 

[Dominic]

Not in the slightest. So long as Imperial Germany retains its military, even a worse-case scenario is post-war AH is salvageable (though I think a collapse in some circumstances could still occur).

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

A-H survived the war that killed it; it was the treaties that screwed it. You have to butterfly a trans-European conflict long enough for them to find some measure of unity.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Not inevitable... Some scenario might have been achieved to preserve the regime.

But I have serious doubts. The effective breakdown of parliamentary goverment in Austria in the 1890s was a bad sign. Parliamentary government was again suspended in March 1914 (well before WW I started), and remained so until May 1917. The Ausgleich with Hungary, which was the basis of the Dual Monarchy, was set to expire in 1917. It was going to be very difficult for Austria to renew it. The ethnic tensions between the Germanophones and the other ethnic flavoers will fester. (The 1897 renewal nearly founderd over language issues.)

Unless propped up by German arms, Austria-Hungary won't make in past 1920, IMHO.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

But I have serious doubts. The effective breakdown of parliamentary goverment in Austria in the 1890s was a bad sign. Parliamentary government was again suspended in March 1914 (well before WW I started), and remained so until May 1917.

This is a problem I agree, but it must be emphasised that A-H had got along fine since the 1890s and no one was talking about a collapse of the Monarchy before WWI.

The Ausgleich with Hungary, which was the basis of the Dual Monarchy, was set to expire in 1917. It was going to be very difficult for Austria to renew it. The ethnic tensions between the Germanophones and the other ethnic flavoers will fester. (The 1897 renewal nearly founderd over language issues.)

This is false, I’m afraid. The Ausgleich was not going to expire, it had no expiry. The joint budget was renegotiated every 5 years (IIRC) but the Ausgleich was a permanent solution to the problem of Hungarian autonomy.

Unless propped up by German arms, Austria-Hungary won't make in past 1920, IMHO.

In a CP/Entente draw scenario I find that overly pessimistic and hard to believe.

 

[lukedalton]

It can survive, with luck, some very necessary reform and the war ending at most at early 1917...after that, yep collapse is more or less unavoidable.
Sure the soldiers fought till the end, but this is not a sign of stability or that people wanted A-H to continue to exist, just that they want to protect their homes; by OTL 1918 the Empire was just a German puppet, with all the old enstablishment losing their credibility.
In general the problem is not survive war, no the problem is survive peace, A-H will be very hard pressed to survive her own 'two red years', the post-war economic problems and the demand of reform.
As the Russian and Ottoman Empire they were relic of another time and were not up surviving the new century, unless a lot of reform were done...but it was never the time

 

[Mikestone8]

But I have serious doubts. The effective breakdown of parliamentary goverment in Austria in the 1890s was a bad sign. Parliamentary government was again suspended in March 1914 (well before WW I started), and remained so until May 1917.

Did Parliamentary government do all that well anywhere in that part of Europe?

Twenty years after the Armistice, most countries in East and Central Europe were dictatorships of one sort or another. Overall democracy had expanded little from where it existed in 1914, yet they didn't disintegrate unless overthrown from without. Is there any reason for a surviving A/H to be an exception?

 

[JBukharin]

The only way AH would have survived is if Karl I had accepted to make some concessions to the federalists within the government. If the CPs had won WW1, the Emperor would have gained some popularity, enough to start a diplomatic platform. Obviously, this decision would also led to a proper constitution and elected chancellors,maybe even the creation of the absurd 'United States of Greater Austria'. The OTL scenario wouldn't allow Karl I to make even enunciate a word as the dissolution was officially caused by the Lansing Note.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

It can survive, with luck, some very necessary reform and the war ending at most at early 1917...after that, yep collapse is more or less unavoidable.

Disagree.

Sure the soldiers fought till the end, but this is not a sign of stability or that people wanted A-H to continue to exist, just that they want to protect their homes; by OTL 1918 the Empire was just a German puppet, with all the old enstablishment losing their credibility.

OTL. You even said it yourself. This ATL will have a different war situation. The dissolution of A-H was enforced on it by the WAllies, it wasn’t a mass popular movement. There were rebellions and revolts, all losers experienced this in WWI, but a significant ‘core’ populace ‘stayed loyal’ and with assistance (or no interferences) Vienna should have been able to hold it together.

In general the problem is not survive war, no the problem is survive peace, A-H will be very hard pressed to survive her own 'two red years', the post-war economic problems and the demand of reform.

The peace will be significantly different ITTL.

As the Russian and Ottoman Empire they were relic of another time and were not up surviving the new century, unless a lot of reform were done...but it was never the time

No need for excessive reforms, organic evolution will sort many of the issues. Before WWI, no-one was predicting the collapse of A-H and no significant movements were pressing for it. It was the rigours of an unsuccessful WWI that brought about the collapse, a successful (or status quo ante bellum) peace will salve many of the issues of 1914-1917.

 

[Gwrtheyrn Annwn]

I could write an essay on this (and have done so) but the short answer is, no it was not inevitable.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

I could write an essay in this (and have done so) but the short answer is, no it was not inevitable.

Exactly. I don’t know why so many posters are convinced it is written in stone, yet will argue many other things can be different but for a small change.

 

[lukedalton]

Disagree.

OTL. You even said it yourself. This ATL will have a different war situation. The dissolution of A-H was enforced on it by the WAllies, it wasn’t a mass popular movement. There were rebellions and revolts, all losers experienced this in WWI, but a significant ‘core’ populace ‘stayed loyal’ and with assistance (or no interferences) Vienna should have been able to hold it together.

The peace will be significantly different ITTL.

No need for excessive reforms, organic evolution will sort many of the issues. Before WWI, no-one was predicting the collapse of A-H and no significant movements were pressing for it. It was the rigours of an unsuccessful WWI that brought about the collapse, a successful (or status quo ante bellum) peace will salve many of the issues of 1914-1917.

1) - sorry, but this was more or less the opinion of the Emperor and his court, there is a reason they attempted to make a separate peace
2) - the Entente doesn't enforced anything, by the end of the war, nobody wanted to remain in that barely moving corpse called A-H; the loyalist were a minority.
3) - Again is not a question of the type of peace, but how long the war is; by 1918 A-H was a German puppet and everybody knows it...meaning that there was very very respect for the old enstablisment, not considering the war loss and the abysmall performance of the k.u.K
4) - Ehm no, you don't go through the biggest massacre know to humanity and simply go back as like things were before with just minor adjustment. People had spilled too much blood for that, they will want greater representation and even in victory there are the nationalistic movement that will want more autonomy. Not only the Hapsburg goverment preffered politics was to kick the can along the road hoping in some miracle but they don't have neither the will nor the idea to implement the necessary reform.

The problem with A-H is that aside the figure of the Emperor and the Army there never was something that created a strong national identity, with.

Exactly. I don’t know why so many posters are convinced it is written in stone, yet will argue many other things can be different but for a small change.

Because the A-H had a lot of problems even before the war, hell it hoped that the war resolved them by getting rid at least of Serbia...instead we had WWI. As example, fascist takeover of Italy is much more simple to avoid, you need one minor PoD and it' done...avoiding the collapse of A-H, need reform, quicker war, capable politician, continued support from Germany so it's much more difficult.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

1) - sorry, but this was more or less the opinion of the Emperor and his court, there is a reason they attempted to make a separate peace
2) - the Entente doesn't enforced anything, by the end of the war, nobody wanted to remain in that barely moving corpse called A-H; the loyalist were a minority.
3) - Again is not a question of the type of peace, but how long the war is; by 1918 A-H was a German puppet and everybody knows it...meaning that there was very very respect for the old enstablisment, not considering the war loss and the abysmall performance of the k.u.K
4) - Ehm no, you don't go through the biggest massacre know to humanity and simply go back as like things were before with just minor adjustment. People had spilled too much blood for that, they will want greater representation and even in victory there are the nationalistic movement that will want more autonomy. Not only the Hapsburg goverment preffered politics was to kick the can along the road hoping in some miracle but they don't have neither the will nor the idea to implement the necessary reform.

The problem with A-H is that aside the figure of the Emperor and the Army there never was something that created a strong national identity, with.

1) Based on OTL, this is an ATL.
2) The division of the Monarchy was the result of the Treaties forced on them by the WAllies, not a public mass movement, a la Russia.
3) Based on OTL, this is an ATL.
4) How not? France did. Britain did.

Because the A-H had a lot of problems even before the war, hell it hoped that the war resolved them by getting rid at least of Serbia...instead we had WWI. As example, fascist takeover of Italy is much more simple to avoid, you need one minor PoD and it' done...avoiding the collapse of A-H, need reform, quicker war, capable politician, continued support from Germany so it's much more difficult.

Read a book on Austria-Hungary. Seriously, do some reading on the actual problems that A-H faced. How many rebellions or revolts were there in A-H before WWI? Name me one that lead to a crisis that caused observers of the day to remark the end of the Empire was near. It's not as difficult as you presume from a couple of Wikipedia articles.

 

[BigBlueBox]

Well, the Hungarian part of the government was rather...shitty. They forced some 10 million non-hungarians to learn
their language, change their names into hungarian sounding ones, and all sorts of denationalization measures.
Furthermore, their economic policies were returning to the 14th century, with most land being stolen and given to hungarian nobles. All this didn't win them much support among the oppressed.

The Austrian side was not affected by the need to ethnically purge the non-germans. They kinda needed the others to make integration by Germany less pleasant and plausible.
With less oppression and somewhat better standards of living and education, the Austrian side might have remained intact, even after a referendum. The Hungarian side would have likely burned in civil wars.

The Austrian Reichsrat was completely dysfunctional after universal suffrage. Czech representatives would try to filibuster nearly every bill. The Czech question was Austria’s Irish question, a question in which the solution was known but politically impossible until it was too late.

A-H survived the war that killed it; it was the treaties that screwed it. You have to butterfly a trans-European conflict long enough for them to find some measure of unity.

Wrong. Austria-Hungary immediately collapsed after the Battle of Vittorio Veneto. The Czechs, Slovaks, South Slavs went their own way and the Ausgleich was dissolved, all before the Treaties of St. Germain and Trianon.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

This is a problem I agree, but it must be emphasised that A-H had got along fine since the 1890s...

Well, aside from having to suspend the national legislature...

...and no one was talking about a collapse of the Monarchy before WWI.

How about in 1897, when the crisis over the Ausgleich brought down the Badeni government?

Mark Twain wrote this about the consequences:

...there was a popular outbreak or two in Vienna; there were three or four days of furious rioting in Prague, followed by the establishing there of martial law... public opinion believes that parliamentary government and the Constitution are actually threatened with extinction, and that the permanency of the monarchy itself is a not absolutely certain thing!

Also, consider the influence of Georg von Schönerer and his Pan-Germanist party, which advocated the absorption of Austria into Imperial Germany, which by implication meant the removal of the Habsburgs.

This is false, I’m afraid. The Ausgleich was not going to expire, it had no expiry. The joint budget was renegotiated every 5 years (IIRC) but the Ausgleich was a permanent solution to the problem of Hungarian autonomy.

Mark Twain wrote this about the Ausgleich:

The Ausgleich is an Adjustment, Arrangement, Settlement, which holds Austria and Hungary together. It dates from 1867, and has to be renewed every ten years. It establishes the share which Hungary must pay toward the expenses of the imperial government. Hungary is a kingdom (the Emperor of Austria is its King), and has its own parliament and governmental machinery. But it has no foreign office, and it has no army -- at least its army is a part of the imperial army, is paid out of the imperial treasury, and is under the control of the imperial war office.

The ten-year rearrangement was due a year ago, but failed to connect. At least completely. A year's compromise was arranged. A new arrangement must be effected before the last day of this year. Otherwise the two countries become separate entities. The Emperor would still be King of Hungary -- that is, King of an independent foreign country. There would be Hungarian custom-houses on the Austrian frontier, and there would be a Hungarian army and a Hungarian foreign office.

So how was this a permanent solution? Or was Twain completely wrong?

And no, things had not gotten better by 1914. At least one prominent Wilhelmine statesman privately lamented that in allying with Austria-Hungary, Germany had bound herself to a rotting hulk. Austria's determination to force war against Serbia was in large part driven by fear of what Serbian ethnic agitation could do within the Empire and Kingdom; i.e. part of the country might flare into open rebellion.

This is not the attitude of a stable, confident government.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

Also, consider the influence of Georg von Schönerer and his Pan-Germanist party, which advocated the absorption of Austria into Imperial Germany, which by implication meant the removal of the Habsburgs.

Wait, what?!?

Why would absorbing Austria into Imperial Germany mean the removal of the Habsburg dynasty? I feel it's just as much likely that everybody else quits the Habsburg domain than the Habsburg's being forced to quit Austria.