(Sorry if this is in the wrong forum, I just think that the POD would need to be pre-1900, for this to work. If this is the wrong forum, can the mods move it please? Thanks.)
As I understand it, (I'm not British myself, so I apologize if I'm wrong,) the UK is in a weird state, where it is considered a nation-state, with a common national identity (British), but being comprised of the four home nations, (England, Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland), all of which have their own distinct national identities as well, and the UK has *mostly survived to the modern day, only recently experiencing upswings in Scottish and Welsh nationalism. Why is it considered a single nation-state, as opposed to Austria-Hungary for instance?
Austria-Hungary is an example of a multinational state which did collapse spectacularly at the end of WWI. I'm asking this question to try and understand what was the difference between the two, because they were both comprised of distinct nations, had linguistic divides, religious divides, etc. So why did one live, and the other die? How much of this is based on simply what ended up happening? Like A-H is stereotyped as the unstable behemoth because it did collapse, while the UK isn't just because it survived.
I've tried to do some research on my own, and I've come up with 3 reasons, and I'd be happy if anyone who knows more about the subject than me would be able to tell me if I've got it right, or if I'm barking up the wrong tree here:
*Yes, I know about Ireland, I'll get to that in a sec.
1. Moderate Nationalism
As far as I can tell (I might have missed something), there just never were any radical organizations formed (that lasted anyhow) in Wales or Scotland, like the Young Czechs, or the Irish Republican Brotherhood, for the radical nationalists to meet, to organize, and to eventually spur on any popular discontent towards national independence.
2. No "Disloyal Nations"
With Austria-Hungary, they had the problem of having to deal with Slavic ethnicities within the empire who were more loyal to the pan-Slavic ideals propagated by their enemies, Russia and Serbia, than they were to the empire, and their politicians were intentionally sabotaging the war effort, and the Slavs needed to be controlled with an iron fist. (The Romanians too, though they're not slavic.)
Or at least that's what they told themselves.
As I understand it, the Czechs, the Serbians, the Ukrainians, etc, were just as loyal as anyone else in the empire, and that the problems that Austria-Hungary suffered, like mass desertions were from other reasons, like war-weariness and economic issues, nothing to do with the nationalists. But the government assumed it was, and assumed the Slavs would be a fifth column in A-H, and persecuted them heavily during the war years, and categorized them as such, as Czechs, Serbs, Ukrainians, etc, even if they never identified as such, and all of this (accidentally) helped to forge these new national identities, where only weak ones existed before.
While with Britain, (with the exception of the Bretons, in friendly France,) all of the Celtic nations were in the UK, there was no hostile Celtic Central Power, propagating pan-Celtic ideology, and so they *never worried about a Celtic fifth column sabotaging the British war effort.
*Obviously, for a variety of reasons, not including Ireland. Which probably contributed to why they were the only one to break away from the UK.
3. Four years in hell.
The obvious one. Austria-Hungary was starved into submission over four years, with more than a million dead. Facing military defeats on all fronts, they asked for an armistice, and the Allies replied with a "Fuck you. The empire must die. The nations of central Europe must be freed from oppression!" and they would not accept an armistice unless A-H was dismantled. So predictably, the nationalists, that the Allies had recognized, dismantled the empire.
As we know, Britain never faced that. There was plenty of unrest, yes, but British soldiers came back victorious to a mostly intact, and reasonably well-fed country. (Even then, the Irish declared independence, because of what had happened during the war, the Catholic opposition, the Easter Rising, the Conscription Crisis, etc.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this an accurate analysis? Have I understood the difference between Britain and Austria-Hungary correctly?
If so, then what would it have taken to flip the two nations fates? To have the UK be remembered in pop history as a chafing behemoth, doomed to be torn apart by nationalism, and Austria-Hungary, (or whatever it's called in TTL,) to be considered a odd sort of nation-state, united under a common... let's say Danubian identity, but for all the different peoples of the empire to have their own distinct identities like Romanian, or Serbian, or Austrian, but also Danubian? In the same way we have Scots and Welsh and English, but they can all identify as British.
Thanks.
As I understand it, (I'm not British myself, so I apologize if I'm wrong,) the UK is in a weird state, where it is considered a nation-state, with a common national identity (British), but being comprised of the four home nations, (England, Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland), all of which have their own distinct national identities as well, and the UK has *mostly survived to the modern day, only recently experiencing upswings in Scottish and Welsh nationalism. Why is it considered a single nation-state, as opposed to Austria-Hungary for instance?
Austria-Hungary is an example of a multinational state which did collapse spectacularly at the end of WWI. I'm asking this question to try and understand what was the difference between the two, because they were both comprised of distinct nations, had linguistic divides, religious divides, etc. So why did one live, and the other die? How much of this is based on simply what ended up happening? Like A-H is stereotyped as the unstable behemoth because it did collapse, while the UK isn't just because it survived.
I've tried to do some research on my own, and I've come up with 3 reasons, and I'd be happy if anyone who knows more about the subject than me would be able to tell me if I've got it right, or if I'm barking up the wrong tree here:
*Yes, I know about Ireland, I'll get to that in a sec.
1. Moderate Nationalism
As far as I can tell (I might have missed something), there just never were any radical organizations formed (that lasted anyhow) in Wales or Scotland, like the Young Czechs, or the Irish Republican Brotherhood, for the radical nationalists to meet, to organize, and to eventually spur on any popular discontent towards national independence.
2. No "Disloyal Nations"
With Austria-Hungary, they had the problem of having to deal with Slavic ethnicities within the empire who were more loyal to the pan-Slavic ideals propagated by their enemies, Russia and Serbia, than they were to the empire, and their politicians were intentionally sabotaging the war effort, and the Slavs needed to be controlled with an iron fist. (The Romanians too, though they're not slavic.)
Or at least that's what they told themselves.
As I understand it, the Czechs, the Serbians, the Ukrainians, etc, were just as loyal as anyone else in the empire, and that the problems that Austria-Hungary suffered, like mass desertions were from other reasons, like war-weariness and economic issues, nothing to do with the nationalists. But the government assumed it was, and assumed the Slavs would be a fifth column in A-H, and persecuted them heavily during the war years, and categorized them as such, as Czechs, Serbs, Ukrainians, etc, even if they never identified as such, and all of this (accidentally) helped to forge these new national identities, where only weak ones existed before.
While with Britain, (with the exception of the Bretons, in friendly France,) all of the Celtic nations were in the UK, there was no hostile Celtic Central Power, propagating pan-Celtic ideology, and so they *never worried about a Celtic fifth column sabotaging the British war effort.
*Obviously, for a variety of reasons, not including Ireland. Which probably contributed to why they were the only one to break away from the UK.
3. Four years in hell.
The obvious one. Austria-Hungary was starved into submission over four years, with more than a million dead. Facing military defeats on all fronts, they asked for an armistice, and the Allies replied with a "Fuck you. The empire must die. The nations of central Europe must be freed from oppression!" and they would not accept an armistice unless A-H was dismantled. So predictably, the nationalists, that the Allies had recognized, dismantled the empire.
As we know, Britain never faced that. There was plenty of unrest, yes, but British soldiers came back victorious to a mostly intact, and reasonably well-fed country. (Even then, the Irish declared independence, because of what had happened during the war, the Catholic opposition, the Easter Rising, the Conscription Crisis, etc.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this an accurate analysis? Have I understood the difference between Britain and Austria-Hungary correctly?
If so, then what would it have taken to flip the two nations fates? To have the UK be remembered in pop history as a chafing behemoth, doomed to be torn apart by nationalism, and Austria-Hungary, (or whatever it's called in TTL,) to be considered a odd sort of nation-state, united under a common... let's say Danubian identity, but for all the different peoples of the empire to have their own distinct identities like Romanian, or Serbian, or Austrian, but also Danubian? In the same way we have Scots and Welsh and English, but they can all identify as British.
Thanks.
