What is the latest Entente WWI victory which doesn't result in Austria-Hungary imploding afterwards?
- Thread starter CaliGuy
- Start date
I don't think there's a hard and fast line.
I think september 1914 is too early, as too many people were still invested in the monarchy (even if losing at all would shake its stability), and the surrender of Russia too late (as an Entente victory means it was all for naught anyhow, and by this point A-H was already pretty exhausted too). But finding a clear cut-off seems hard; the Brusilov offensive maybe, but at that point I think Germany would still survive even a defeat relatively in one piece, and might have a possibility to prop up (German-speaking) Austria/Cisleithania. On the other hand a defeated but solid Germany might just annex the remains of Cisleithania.
I think september 1914 is too early, as too many people were still invested in the monarchy (even if losing at all would shake its stability), and the surrender of Russia too late (as an Entente victory means it was all for naught anyhow, and by this point A-H was already pretty exhausted too). But finding a clear cut-off seems hard; the Brusilov offensive maybe, but at that point I think Germany would still survive even a defeat relatively in one piece, and might have a possibility to prop up (German-speaking) Austria/Cisleithania. On the other hand a defeated but solid Germany might just annex the remains of Cisleithania.
Basically if the war end in 1916 and it's something of negotiated, so A-H don't lose too much; the empire with a big dose of luck, hard work, some strong reformer and a copious amount of ruthleness, it can be saved (not the most probable outcome but at least there is the possibility).
By 1917, winning or losing the war is meaningless for the survival of the empire, just to decide how quick will end...and even if the Germans decide to prop it up for sometime everybody will know that Wien it's totally subservient to Berlin and continue to exist at the pleasure of the German Kaiser
By 1917, winning or losing the war is meaningless for the survival of the empire, just to decide how quick will end...and even if the Germans decide to prop it up for sometime everybody will know that Wien it's totally subservient to Berlin and continue to exist at the pleasure of the German Kaiser
My take on the situation is that any peace pre-1918, or, at the utmost, autumn 1918 would leave Austria-Hungary intact. At least, for a given value of intact. The Empire was certainly struggling and in trouble before that, but I don't think it was really insurmountable until the wheels really started to come off in the last year. In that year you had the failue of the German Spring Offensive followed by the Vardar Offensive, which broke open the Balkan Front. By that point it was clear the Allies would win the war, and that Austria-Hungary was a spent force, so there was no point for the component nationalities to remain in it, or the Allies to endorse it's continuation. However, before that string of events I think there was enough domestic support for the Dual Monarchy for it to remain a viable nation after the war, though likely with diminished borders.
Thomas1195
Banned
Even if this was avoided, by 1918, the idea of national self-determination in Wilson's fourteen points would seal its fate
Well, I think it could be maintained as a shadow of itself if the Germans secure a victory before the summer of 1917 at the absolute latest. But it would be nowhere near its 1914 status. At this point, you can't avoid becoming a German client state, one of the many to form the Mittleuropa, and nationalist agitation in every corner of the Empire is bound to increase, unless the post-1683 national paradigm shifts to something else (like it briefly did in Russia between 1917 and the early 20s) before the 'Empire' collapses.
There would have to be concessions to the nationalities, but most people couldn't imagine a breakup of the monarchy right up to autumn 18, and the army remained loyal until the final collapse. But I'd argue that the second Russian revolution sealed the fate of the Empire. The Empire had been a 'historical necessity', a needed counterweight to both Russia and Prussia/Germany since the congress of Vienna. Until Lenin's revolution, the British in particular could have been depended on to preserve Austria-Hungary to prevent the inevitable domination of the resulting gaggle of small, impoverished, powerless statelets by either Germany or Russia, and if Britain had to screw over their allies at the peace table to do that, so be it, doing that isn't kind of the Anglo-saxon leitmotif for nothing.
The revolution changed all that. Communist Russia would have absolutely no appeal to the elites of eastern Europe, panslavistic or not, and I don't think British class arrogance could even envision popular sentiment (pro-Soviet or otherwise) influencing the course the elites (and governments) would take, instead of the other way around. So Russia would be isolated, the Great Game won at last, and together with the French they could keep Germany down, militarily impotent and economically weak. Even better, the breakup would sever the web of economic interdependencies in the former Empire, end its fast economic growth and industrialisation before the war, and create new markets for Anglo-French wares and sources for raw materials. National self-determination was just a propaganda slogan, aimed especially at the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires, not an ideology any of the movers and shakers in the Entente believed in (especially not concerning their own subjects).
Of course, now, with hindsight, we know they miscalculated badly, and the area in question went on to become first German, then Soviet puppets.
The revolution changed all that. Communist Russia would have absolutely no appeal to the elites of eastern Europe, panslavistic or not, and I don't think British class arrogance could even envision popular sentiment (pro-Soviet or otherwise) influencing the course the elites (and governments) would take, instead of the other way around. So Russia would be isolated, the Great Game won at last, and together with the French they could keep Germany down, militarily impotent and economically weak. Even better, the breakup would sever the web of economic interdependencies in the former Empire, end its fast economic growth and industrialisation before the war, and create new markets for Anglo-French wares and sources for raw materials. National self-determination was just a propaganda slogan, aimed especially at the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires, not an ideology any of the movers and shakers in the Entente believed in (especially not concerning their own subjects).
Of course, now, with hindsight, we know they miscalculated badly, and the area in question went on to become first German, then Soviet puppets.
Thomas1195
Banned
Well, of course Wilson's national self determination was used by victors to achieve their goals. But you only need to have the idea reached the Hungarians, the Czech, the Serbs, the Croats..., then A-H would implode from inside.
Deleted member 94680
Austria-Hungary fell apart due to the realities of losing WWI. It had little to do with Wilson, outside of cosmetic window-dressing in a hope it would achieve beneficial recognition from the WAllies. If Wilson hadn't made his declaration, putting A-H in the same situation it was OTL (losing, surrounded by victorious nations with claims on its territory) would probably result in its breakup.
If, for whatever reason, the British and French had wanted A-H to stay united, it would have remained.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Any negotiated end to the war would keep A-H intact, at least temporarily. But to have a negotiated end to the war with an Entente victory is difficult to imagine - I would suggest it would have to be pre-entry of USA into the war (or the entry of the USA is indefinitely delayed).
Maybe postulate a treaty of mutual exhaustion in 1918 where Austria undergoes an internal conflict similar to Russia but the "Whites" "win" by keeping Austria and Bohemia. I think Hungary and the Balkans are gone whatever in the event of a lost war.
Maybe postulate a treaty of mutual exhaustion in 1918 where Austria undergoes an internal conflict similar to Russia but the "Whites" "win" by keeping Austria and Bohemia. I think Hungary and the Balkans are gone whatever in the event of a lost war.
I think the USA's entry would not effect the armistice with Austria-Hungary until there aren't too many American troops in Europe. Until then, I think the allies would be more than pleased to relieve some pressure on themselves. The Italians might protest, but if we consider a POD just after Caporetto, I think they wouldn't have much say in these matters.
An internal conflict similar to Russia's is very unlikely in my opinion, and even if it would occur, keeping Hungary looks much more viable to me, even more if we take a POD before the collapse of Macedonian front.