It all comes down to how and when the Great War ends. If the central powers win this war, it is not impossible that Austria-Hungary is allowed to keep Galicia-Lodomeria or is Austria-Hungary going to be compensated? Furthermore a shorter Great War and a victory for Austria-Hungary will result in fewer problems for the Dual Monarchy.
What Happens to Austria-Hungary after a Late CP Victory?
- Thread starter LordIreland
- Start date
It all comes down to how and when the Great War ends. If the central powers win this war, it is not impossible that Austria-Hungary is allowed to keep Galicia-Lodomeria or is Austria-Hungary going to be compensated? Furthermore a shorter Great War and a victory for Austria-Hungary will result in fewer problems for the Dual Monarchy.
Lokari
Banned
Losing Galicia was welcomed by certain political circles in AH. The alternative was either to attach Congress Poland to AH in Triple-Monarchy-which German conservatives and Hungarians opposed, or to leave Galicia in AH-which would cause problems with puppeting Poland for Germany, and dissent in AH from both Ukrainian and Polish population.
This thread is about late CP victory.
The fact that Austria-Hungary is victorious in this late CP victory, will result in less problems for Austria-Hungary. Let say that Austria-Hungary gives up Galicia-Lodomeria, how will they be compensated? Losing Galicia-Lodomeria disturbs the balance between Cisleithania and Transleithania, something that will not be welcomed by the Austrians; however OTOH AH probably needs to be reformed into a Quadruple (or Pentuple (?) with Galicia-Lodomeria) monarchy if they want to survive.
Where did I say any of that? Nowhere. I was merely pointing out that a German-dominated Europe is not going to be anything like the EU, where everyone has a (technically) equal say. It was going to be Europe run by Germany, for Germany.
a Habsburg on the throne of Poland... wasn't that the plan....
Franz Ferdinand's son's, barred from succession to the Empire, would they be similiarly barred from a reconstitued Poland that included Galicia and Lodomeria or Ukraine.
Of course Serbia not annexed to Bulgaria could be annexed in compensation and united with Croatia and Bosnia and become the third part of the triple monarchy...Austria-Hungary-Yugoslavia. Though its not what I would envision as most desirable or even probable.
Last edited:
Beer
Banned
Hi, Douglas!
If you´d make the effort and come to Germany, we have several archives open to the public where you can see original papers and/or copies about the Mitteleuropa Plan.Unspoiled by Entente propaganda! Mitteleuropa would have been great for our good, old continent. Stability, more peace and prosperty. To quote myself:"I never said that the CP had only humanitarian goals, but their goals were far more humanitarian than what you got from the classic Entente Powers.
Customs union at a time when trade wars were normal-right idea.
Giving the Baltics more self-rule than they had instead of simply annexing them-right idea.
That this was not for a nice place in heaven after death only, is just logical. To this day, nations do nothing for the good feeling alone. But the CP wanted this for the stability and growth in Europe, instead of e.g. France who wanted just petty revenge and trying to destroy Germany at that time. The CP plans for Europe had the outlook for something greater, someday it should have encompassed the whole continent for wideranging stability. The "EU", just earlier."
About the Princes: It might seem unusual to an American (from your stance I think you are one, if not please correct me), but this Head-of-State planting was done in Europe (by all sides) for centuries. Nothing new for Europeans. Yes, the new states would be in the german orbit, but (like the german Länder) with internal self-rule (and wide-ranging, but not full external self-control). Quite an improvement over what e.g. the Baltics had before! Esp. for that time, when the Great Powers pushed smaller nations around like chess pieces.
I Blame Communism
Banned
We made plenty of nauseating propaganda, but I'm glad we won in 1918.
Forcing small countries into total economic dependence against their will - wrong idea.
Whut? Estonia and Latvia were being given over to crusader knights who thought the Ludendorff regime was too liberal. They'd been too reactionary for Alexander III, too. Certainly, Estonians and Latvians would have preffered autonomy under Russia. British expeditonary leaders were worried that that Latvians, having been the longest under occupation, would prefer the Bolsheviks, and they probably would have.
"Petty revenge"? I'm fed up with this legend. General Boulanger horrified the statesmen of the Third Republic, who were cautious, sober man and helped France and Germany have stable relations for four decades. When the break came, it was Germany that was attacking France, after all. Only then did France make it a goal to regain provinces lost against the will of the people in 1871, and note that the A-L legislature voted for union with France in 1918. Extreme circumstances, sure, but France was more popular with Alsatians than Germany was with "Mitteleuropans", that's clear.
"Destroy Germany"? The whole "seperate states" business, and the Rhine frontier? Playing devil's advocate, that was to protect France from another devstating invasion, which seems to me just as valid an excuse (ie not very) as Germany's desire for "stability and prosperity" was for eviscerating Russia.
Is "wide-ranging stability" a codeword for "German semicolonial rule"?
The new states that arose from Entente victory were allowed and encouraged to be democracies, and genuine left as independent actors in actuall alliances. Germany wasn't bashful about trying to create utter dependencies. "German barons" is just a snappy phrase: the Ukrainian marrionette was a local "hetman".
I've also states that cheap villification of Russian rule doesn't change the fact, accepted by British officers serving in a specifically anti-Bolshevik mission, that Latvians preffered Bolsheviks to Germans is "independent Latvia" wasn't on the table.
AH cannot hold together. A victory in WWI may extend the life of the empire. A triple monarchy may extend it a little longer. However, it is still fragile and a knock such as a major economic downturn would leave it in ruins.
Beer
Banned
Since you´re british, naturally you are, but in the long run a victory by us would have been better.
As I wrote to Douglas, come to Germany and look into the archives, before you make your call.
Now coming with "probably would"? You know that the british leaders were not impartial in their opinions! The CP had lost, this is a whole different situation. You manipulate with POV comments.
And I´m fed up with the "Oh so peaceful Entente nations" legend! France was itching to regain A-L well before the war. Ever read french newspapers and some official papers of that time? Peaceful, my ...! And the vote of 1918: Loosing such a war does not gain you voters.
There is a difference between weakening Russia for decades and total ripping apart Germany, like this plans proposed.
I won´t honour this dung with more than wide-ranging stablity = wide-ranging stability.
I don´t villificate russian rule, but you, as said above, try to manipulate the discussion with biased POVs. The british officers saw what they wanted/should see.
Funny, that this "rise for self-rule" of the Entente came only after the Americans were on board and much more, only when it would weaken their enemies. France and GB were quite adept in striking down such movements, when it was against their interests!
I Blame Communism
Banned
There are wars I wish Britain had lost, or come out worse from, or not fought.
Do these archives contain evidence that Germany had no intention of forcing the Mitteleuropan states into economic partnership?
True. They were bitterly anti-Bolshevik, more conciliatory towards Germany than their allies, and had engineered the presence of German forces in the Baltic countries after the armistice, so if they think the Latvians were pro-Russian or even pro-Bolshevik if it was that of Germany, that's prtety telling. For firmer evidence, look at the (Red) Latvian Legions, which were raised in 1916 but pretty well all went Bolshevik.
The Latvians would have loved the Germans as elder brothers if they'd won? That would explain why they were raising volunteer battalions for the tsar against this contingency, then...
Which official papers? When? Who were they produced for? There's extensive evidence for Franco-German pragmatic exchange before WW1. It was the French who came up with the whole Egyptian co-operation thing. I'd have to check sources for me, but there's plenty.
And I acknowledged this. But Germany could never have won a vote in Latvia or Belarus.
And it is? Germans are special and Russians are not? You're still denying self-determination for cynical ends.
So you don't have any way of prroving that Germany would have been Mr. Nice Guy to its client states, you mean?
As I said, "better German than Bolsh" was official British policy.
Absolutely. And?
Beer
Banned
Wow, this makes you a minority on the Isles for sure! Rather seldom a standpoint there.
Well, forcing itself into something is rather difficult (Germany and A-H are mitteleuropean, too
), but joking aside: The Plans were for the CP states to form a customs union to bring more economic weight to bear in peacetime and to generate more wealth. There was hope, that one day it would encompass the continent. I admit that there where some groups who wanted to force others into Mitteleuropa, BUT this were fringe groups without real influence! These loudmouths were instrumentalizied by Entente propaganda and revisionist historians to discredit the Mitteleuropa Plan. The real plan, supported by most involved in this planning, was to let others see what could be done with this economic market and then other european states would flock into Mitteleuropa all by themselves.
Pragmatic yes, but the "We want A-L back" crowd grew steadily. Revanchism and pragmatic work are not mutually exclusive.
No, Germans and russians are equal, but the point is: Even with B-L, Russia would have come back on to the stage after some decades, since most of the Rodina was still in Russian hands. It would have taken Russia some time, but some of the plans for Germany on the other hand, would have terminated Germany as a state. Something even B-L could not do to Russia.
As I wrote in other posts, I know that the german aims were not pure humanitarian, no nations at that time were, there should be a pay off. But the german plans would have seen to a rapid reconvalencence of the states after the war. Not the wars and crisises they got.
It´s rather irritating to hear the "Germany has EEvvviiillll Intentions" chorus again and again, but the Entente, which did the same or more gets a pat on the back!
The Mitteleuropa Plan was decades ahead of it´s time, but no, "Germany has evil intentions even when they have good intentions" one has to hear here often.
Annoying!
Last edited:
Though if Wiki is to be believed. there are still some quarter of a million Hereros left. OTOH, the last Tasmanian died in 1876.
But enough such comparisons. As long as there were empires , there were going to be things like that, because it's what Empires do. The only way to (possibly) avoid them was to have no empires at all, which wasn't seen as an option in the Victorian/Edwardian era.
Ok....think this thread is about done, thanks to all who contributed, I pretty much got what I needed from it