Whats required to save Austria?

I find it pretty interesting how some people here think that the only reason for the Habsburg Empires fall was Hungary and more specifically the hungarian nobility - which they say - had no real support among the populace.

This last statement is based on the fact that most of the populace had no voting rights - which is true. But this doesnt mean that all the non voters would support the proposed policy: military occupation and forced dissolvement of the state. For some reason i think that the non voter hungarians wouldnt be more supportive of this idea as the ones with voting rights. Anyway the least what we can do is to say that its in doubt what the non voters -especially the hungarian non voters thought of the policy followed by the elit. My opinion is that at least the hungarians wouldnt have liked or accepted the dissolvment of their state by the Austrian military.

Because thats what they propose: best way to save Austria is take a stick and beat the hungarians to a pulp and everything would be good. Because thats the way stable and lasting staates are created in modern times: by oppression and the brutal use of force. They wont fall apart the first time the army is weakened by lets say a lost war or something of the sort (like Austria after WWI).

They dont see that this simple changes who the oppressed is - basically the problem remains and i think it only becomes bigger. Lets assume you do what they suggest and destroy Hungary and give rights to the nationalities in Hungary - separate autonomous staates are created inside the Empire. This will only leave the hungarians as the enemy of this state is what they think. But look at it more closely: without Croatia around 50% of the populace of the rest of the Kingdom of Hungary was hungarian (numbers provided by the last census conducted by the Hungarian staate puts that on 54% but thats likely biased so lets say its arounf 50%). And the elit is near completly hungarian - those with the money and influence. I think if you really want an enemy its better if he doesnt have money and connections - but your choice.

And its important to note that even if you do this its likely the rest of the nationalities still wont be Austrias greatest supporters: the serbians and romanians already have a national staate outside of Austria. They might be less willing to live the empire but they would be still wiling to do so - not all but likely a significant number.

And last but not least: They seem to forget that the empire was loaded with unsolved and really hard to solve national problems. Austria never managed to come to an understanding with the czech in Bohemia. You cant have the ukrainians happy in the same time the polish are happy - and the polish wont be really happy without an independent Poland. Lets just use this 2 examples: you can force a "solution" in this cases but its really likely that one party wont accept it. If you divide Bohemia between the germans and czech the latter wont accept it. If you dont you loose the support of lots of the germans. If you have the polish lead the whole of Galicia they will be content - until an independent Poland comes around at least. In this case the ukrainians wont like your staate. Divide Galicia between the two and make the polish your enemy. And i havent even mentiones problems like italians or Bosnia- the latest unsolved even today.

The bane of Austria was the huge number of unsolved problems with the nationalities - both in Austria and Hungary. To solve them would have required an incredibly talented leader with patience who could negotiate a peaceful solution of this problems - if its even possible. Using the army will get you till the first war and no further - as it did IOTL. If a staate is only held together by its army oppressing its people and is called the prison of nations im not sure i should be too sad when (and not if) it falls apart.
 
I find it pretty interesting how some people here think that the only reason for the Habsburg Empires fall was Hungary and more specifically the hungarian nobility - which they say - had no real support among the populace.

This last statement is based on the fact that most of the populace had no voting rights - which is true. But this doesnt mean that all the non voters would support the proposed policy: military occupation and forced dissolvement of the state. For some reason i think that the non voter hungarians wouldnt be more supportive of this idea as the ones with voting rights. Anyway the least what we can do is to say that its in doubt what the non voters -especially the hungarian non voters thought of the policy followed by the elit. My opinion is that at least the hungarians wouldnt have liked or accepted the dissolvment of their state by the Austrian military.

Because thats what they propose: best way to save Austria is take a stick and beat the hungarians to a pulp and everything would be good. Because thats the way stable and lasting staates are created in modern times: by oppression and the brutal use of force. They wont fall apart the first time the army is weakened by lets say a lost war or something of the sort (like Austria after WWI).

They dont see that this simple changes who the oppressed is - basically the problem remains and i think it only becomes bigger. Lets assume you do what they suggest and destroy Hungary and give rights to the nationalities in Hungary - separate autonomous staates are created inside the Empire. This will only leave the hungarians as the enemy of this state is what they think. But look at it more closely: without Croatia around 50% of the populace of the rest of the Kingdom of Hungary was hungarian (numbers provided by the last census conducted by the Hungarian staate puts that on 54% but thats likely biased so lets say its arounf 50%). And the elit is near completly hungarian - those with the money and influence. I think if you really want an enemy its better if he doesnt have money and connections - but your choice.

And its important to note that even if you do this its likely the rest of the nationalities still wont be Austrias greatest supporters: the serbians and romanians already have a national staate outside of Austria. They might be less willing to live the empire but they would be still wiling to do so - not all but likely a significant number.

And last but not least: They seem to forget that the empire was loaded with unsolved and really hard to solve national problems. Austria never managed to come to an understanding with the czech in Bohemia. You cant have the ukrainians happy in the same time the polish are happy - and the polish wont be really happy without an independent Poland. Lets just use this 2 examples: you can force a "solution" in this cases but its really likely that one party wont accept it. If you divide Bohemia between the germans and czech the latter wont accept it. If you dont you loose the support of lots of the germans. If you have the polish lead the whole of Galicia they will be content - until an independent Poland comes around at least. In this case the ukrainians wont like your staate. Divide Galicia between the two and make the polish your enemy. And i havent even mentiones problems like italians or Bosnia- the latest unsolved even today.

The bane of Austria was the huge number of unsolved problems with the nationalities - both in Austria and Hungary. To solve them would have required an incredibly talented leader with patience who could negotiate a peaceful solution of this problems - if its even possible. Using the army will get you till the first war and no further - as it did IOTL. If a staate is only held together by its army oppressing its people and is called the prison of nations im not sure i should be too sad when (and not if) it falls apart.
Why not unite Cieszyn with Galicia-Lodomeria, the two duchies of Zator and Oswiecim are technically parts of Bohemian crown as well but the partitioners of Poland did not restore it to Bohemia.
 
Top