Was the collapse of Austria-Hungary inevitable?

Wouldn't a proactive ruler just have brought disaster in the short term?

Looking at Franz Ferdinand's plans for the monarchy (the dictatorship from the cente circa 1914 rather than federation idea from earlier)? Probably. The man's wish to ally with Russia and emulate the autocratic emperors would make things even worse - especially given his open enmity with the Hungarian aristocracy (I could honestly see Franz Ferdinand launch War Plan U and start a civil war with Hungary). So, avoiding WWI ... Austria could survive, but if it did, it would survive in spite of Franz Ferdinand rather than because of him, though Sophie might be a moderating influence.

Karl I/IV had some more reasonable ideas driven, in large part, by desperation and an awareness of the Empire's weakness. The seperate peace was basically the last reasonable chance to salvage anything.

Fundamentally, the Empire made a few crucial mistakes early on (as in pre-1848 early), which would be difficult to fix. Not impossible, but difficult - made even more difficult by the presence of countries with ambitions on Austria's borders (Russia, Italy, Romania and Serbia would all happily stab Austria to neuter a rival/get their rightful territories). By 1914, it was widely believed that something had to give (except among Hungary's more conservative nobles ... and in Franz Joseph I's mind) - World War I was generally viewed as an opportunity for Austria to neuter its immediate enemies long enough to get its own house into order.

I'd actually say that, as much as Franz Joseph I helped keep the Empire together, he was as much a factor in its weakening over time. Under him, the old order ossified into place and the man was an arch-conservative - remember, he ascended to the throne in 1848. Having him die in, say, the 1905 assassination attempt might suffice - as Franz Ferdinand's ideas were largely in flux at this point and not as disastrous as they would become.
 
AHs collapse was far from inevitable. Many people were for increased autonomy, but very few wanted outright independence apart from naive students and some small local elites who figured that would allow them to get their sticky fingers into the tax pot. Most people knew they would be far better off as citizens of a large empire with a growing economy than in a small nation that can be pushed around economically and diplomatically by basically everyone else, or annexed by some neighbour (same ethnicity or not) who inevitably would plunder and neglect those regions in favour of their core areas (as seen with Italy, Greater Serbia or Rumania).

Other multiethnic empires survived well. Why is it dogma that Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and South Slavs will always revolt, while Welsh and Scottish will be overjoyed to be ruled by the Anglo-Saxon Master Race? Or Corsicans, Bretons, Alsatians and Provencials by the French?

A-H had in the past relied on their 'historic necessity' as a counterweight to Russia and Germany. Most of all it was the Russian revolution that killed the Empire. Britain and France came to the assumption that, of course, Russia would be isolated, as no state would deal with a revolutionary rabble that had just chopped down their betters, and they would be able to keep Germany down themselves. A-H would no longer be necessary, and instead of economic competition, its breakup into small, economically unviable states would increase profits for their own industries. Which is what politicians are (paid) for.

I'd argue that it was the collapse of the Ottomans' European holdings in 1878 that caused the greatest damage to the Austro-Hungarians. Without the Great Turk as an opponent and scarecrow, there was nothing keeping the Balkans in line and nationalism could grow strong there.

That said, communist Russia could probably have served the same role had Austria-Hungary survived ww1 - yeah, the Hungarians, Poles and Romanians would like to rule themselves, but Uncle Joe is just across the border, can they really afford to not have Austria and Bohemia backing them? Probably not.
 
That said, communist Russia could probably have served the same role had Austria-Hungary survived ww1 - yeah, the Hungarians, Poles and Romanians would like to rule themselves, but Uncle Joe is just across the border, can they really afford to not have Austria and Bohemia backing them? Probably not.

Depend, if it a post B-L URSS, well it's not that scary and can have some local support, if it after the CP lose the war...well you need to be a good reason for the empire to not collapse; basically you need a URSS with the revolution of 1905 and with A-H and Germany (and a lot of other nation) doing almost nothing except maybe some minor territorial grab
 
I'd argue that it was the collapse of the Ottomans' European holdings in 1878 that caused the greatest damage to the Austro-Hungarians. Without the Great Turk as an opponent and scarecrow, there was nothing keeping the Balkans in line and nationalism could grow strong there.

That said, communist Russia could probably have served the same role had Austria-Hungary survived ww1 - yeah, the Hungarians, Poles and Romanians would like to rule themselves, but Uncle Joe is just across the border, can they really afford to not have Austria and Bohemia backing them? Probably not.

I don't think the role of an exterior "scarecrow" is as potent as you might suggest. I think that the development of nationalism within A-H isn't necessarily incompatible with the A-H itself, therefore, the need to "keep it in line" is a bit overstated. I think that the real problem to the A-H is the fact that its liberal institutions and its monarchy became discredited with the First World War, and those were the primary mechanisms keeping it intact.
 
I tend to think that it was inevitable. The Ausgleich was a short-term solution to a long-term problem in a world of growing interconnectivity, literacy, and wealth.
 
Top