WI: Franz Joseph is assassinated in 1882?

Skallagrim

Banned
As far as the Austro-German relation is concerned, Rudolf was certainly not inclined towards any warm feelings for Germany. This doesn't mean that he'd want a war with Germany, but he was convinced that Austria was the better of the two. In matters as varied as historiography and economics, he felt that Vienna and Berlin were wholly alien to each other. Observe that the economist Carl Menger (founder of the Austrian School of Economics) was his tutor, and shared many of his (classical) liberal ideas. Rudolf was influenced by Menger to such an extent that in the Methodenstreit, he was bound to side with 'his own' Austrians against the German ideas.

It would be interesting to see that develop. Everyone is going on about war and military potential, but I'm more interested in the possibility of Austria presenting itself as an alternative to the "German way of doing things". You note that attitude in the OTL writings of Austrian economists (such as Mises): that there was a distinctly "Austrian" competitor to the "German" vision of what Europe should be. In OTL, two world wars totally killed all remnants of the old, imperial Austria that embodied this alternative. But in an ATL, we might get a different outcome. Austria wasn't going to be a military power to match Germany, for sure. But old Austria could claim to be the true heart of Europe. And in that capacity, it might continue to embody an alternative vision for Europe's future-- one at odds with the German idea.
 
it's the same as italy, they were in the building up process, so if the German alliance looses Austria italy might focus even more on the navy since has no ally in the Mediterranean while Austria might rely more on the frenc/british navy and thus focus more on army.
But the point is, no one can sustain a war from every side. and the German know this very well, they won the 7 years war by luck because Caterina of Russia died and her son sued for peace. now let's do a quick math ok?

I never said that Austria could sustain such a war? I simply said that in a scenario of an Austro-Franco-British Triple Entente they could easily supply Austria through the Adriatic and wouldn't depend on Balkan allies and supply routes, despite Italian resistance. Whether that would be enough for Austria to stay in the war is a wholly other question.
 
As far as the Austro-German relation is concerned, Rudolf was certainly not inclined towards any warm feelings for Germany. This doesn't mean that he'd want a war with Germany, but he was convinced that Austria was the better of the two. In matters as varied as historiography and economics, he felt that Vienna and Berlin were wholly alien to each other. Observe that the economist Carl Menger (founder of the Austrian School of Economics) was his tutor, and shared many of his (classical) liberal ideas. Rudolf was influenced by Menger to such an extent that in the Methodenstreit, he was bound to side with 'his own' Austrians against the German ideas.

It would be interesting to see that develop. Everyone is going on about war and military potential, but I'm more interested in the possibility of Austria presenting itself as an alternative to the "German way of doing things". You note that attitude in the OTL writings of Austrian economists (such as Mises): that there was a distinctly "Austrian" competitor to the "German" vision of what Europe should be. In OTL, two world wars totally killed all remnants of the old, imperial Austria that embodied this alternative. But in an ATL, we might get a different outcome. Austria wasn't going to be a military power to match Germany, for sure. But old Austria could claim to be the true heart of Europe. And in that capacity, it might continue to embody an alternative vision for Europe's future-- one at odds with the German idea.

Very interesting. How would you say do the Austrian and German vision of what Europe should be differ? I have only marginal understanding of economic theory, but does that difference in perspective go beyond economics? What would be the best source to find more on this? I fear reading anything by Menger or Mises would just be economic theory, not the wider picture.
 

gurgu

Banned
I never said that Austria could sustain such a war? I simply said that in a scenario of an Austro-Franco-British Triple Entente they could easily supply Austria through the Adriatic and wouldn't depend on Balkan allies and supply routes, despite Italian resistance. Whether that would be enough for Austria to stay in the war is a wholly other question.
my apologies then, reading your comment i though you were suggesting that austria could resist....
BTW we can agree that french are a bit bastards and i think they won't actually send help nor supplies as they know Austria is doomed and so they will "wash their hands off" and focus on Rhine like they did with Poland in OTL in 1939; Britain maybe but for france i'm sure about this
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Very interesting. How would you say do the Austrian and German vision of what Europe should be differ? I have only marginal understanding of economic theory, but does that difference in perspective go beyond economics? What would be the best source to find more on this? I fear reading anything by Menger or Mises would just be economic theory, not the wider picture.

Germany -- particularly Prussia -- had become obsessed with a particular vision of what the the state should be and do. From the Austrian perspective, this "Prussianism" was evidence of a neurotic, jumped-up johnny-come-lately parvenu empire. The German obsession with a "place in the sun" was regarded with disdain. Austria considered itself the bearer of a legacy going all the way back to the foundation of the HRE. In other words: it had the "credentials", in its own view, which Prussia (and its recently-minted German Empire) lacked. Vienna saw itself as a worldly city, and saw Berlin as a boorish provincial town by comparison.

There were of course a lot of Austrian conservatives, and they regarded Austria as the centre of Europe (and of the old Cocert of Europe; and in fact of the proper order of things in general). They saw "Prussian" conservatism and its formless realpolitik as ideologically vacuous. This is one possible contrast: Austria (in its own eyes) as the bearer of a historical legacy, and germany as a country where everything is only suborned to naked power. (From the other side, Germany was proud of its own "realism" and pragmatism, and saw Austria as a relic; a has-been.)

The Austrian liberals and reformers were alsoat odds with their German counterparts. In Germany, the movement for liberal reform had ultimately merged with more moderate left-wing elements. It was aimed at creating a more responsible, activist state. We know that this model ultimately became dominant in OTL, but in Austria, there was some perspective for an alternative. There, the more classical liberals exerted greater influence for some time. Keep in mind that the notable "small government" thinkers of the Austrian school identified themselves, without qualification, as liberals. They explicitly decried the Prussian "liberalism" as being illiberal at heart. When you get down to it, this was an iteration of the discussion between "a government which provides" (considered to be a liberal ideal by social liberals) and "freedom from government interference in your life" (considered a liberal ideal by classical liberals). German liberals clearly veered towards the former, and in this ATL, I can see Austrian liberals very definitively opting for the latter.

The above ties into the conception of economics. For the Germans, the economy served the state, and the economy as a whole could be understood and directed. The Austrian school, which Menger founded, argued that the economy is an endlessly diverse and variable collection and succession of individual human actions, which cannot be effectively suborned to any goal, nor can it be directed in an efficient manner. (It can be done, but doing so harms the economy-- often immensely.) As such, an Austria where this school has the Emperor's ear would be likely to avoid all sorts of experiments in central planning. And it would stick very tightly to the gold standard.

Finally, we have perhaps the fundamental issue of self-perception. Germany was a national(istic) empire. Austria was a cosmopolitan empire. While we have seen where excesses of nationalism have led in the 20th century, we have not seen a healthy counter-weight to that in the same period. It would be interesting to envision an Austria that uses its cosmopolitan, multi-national nature to present itself as being an alternative to the nation-state ideal. (Note that reactionaries and nationalists of various stripes were repeatedly allied with each other against the classical liberals.)


...as for good sources: Margarete Boos has written a sort of 'intellectial biography' of Menger (often quite critical, by the way), which is very helpful in understanding his ideas and their context. For Prince Rudolf's ideas (changing and diverse as they were throughout his life), consider Salvendy's Royal Rebel: A Psychological Portrait of Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria-Hungary. Otherwise, there's always Brigitte Hamann's Kronprinz Rudolf: Ein Leben -- but I don't think that's been translated.

There is also The historical setting of the Austrian school of economics, an essay by Mises. It is obviously partisan, and perhaps too much concerned with economic doctrine for your purposes, but it provides some context.
 
Top