WI Transylvania is granted the same status as Croatia

[Fehérvári]

So what if Transylvania would had been granted similar status as Croatia-Slavonia within the Lands of the Hungarian Holy Crown AKA Transleithania following the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867?

- Hungarian, German and Romanian would all become official languages.
- There would be a Transylvanian assembly that would send delegates to the Hungarian Parliament.
- There would be a Transylvanian devolved government headed by the Voivode who is appointed by the King based on the Hungarian Prime Minister's recommendation.

How could this affect Hungary and Austria-Hungary as a whole in the coming decades? Effects abroad? Please tell me what you think!

 

[Mister Mister]

So what if Transylvania would had been granted similar status as Croatia-Slavonia within the Lands of the Hungarian Holy Crown AKA Transleithania following the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867?

- Hungarian, German and Romanian would all become official languages.
- There would be a Transylvanian assembly that would send delegates to the Hungarian Parliament.
- There would be a Transylvanian devolved government headed by the Voivode who is appointed by the King based on the Hungarian Prime Minister's recommendation.

How could this affect Hungary and Austria-Hungary as a whole in the coming decades? Effects abroad? Please tell me what you think!

Too many Hungarians there. In Croatia you had 1% of Hungarians. Not so in Transylvania.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

So what if Transylvania would had been granted similar status as Croatia-Slavonia within the Lands of the Hungarian Holy Crown AKA Transleithania following the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867?

- Hungarian, German and Romanian would all become official languages

I think that could mitigate national issues, but not solve them. Nationalisms were sometimes pretty stupid, you had examples of people going against the interests of their own country in the name of it - for example Croatian nationalists, who aimed for union with Serbia and when it happened, they mostly regretted it, one of them allegedly said that things were better in Austro-Hungary for them than in Yugoslavia.
And Romanians had their own country outside of Austria-Hungary and I think at least some of them will still gravitate towards it.

 

[Fehérvári]

Too many Hungarians there. In Croatia you had 1% of Hungarians. Not so in Transylvania.

Yes, but unlike in Croatia, Hungarian would be an official language in Transylvania, so I don't think that would be an issue.

I think that could mitigate national issues, but not solve them.

Mitigating them would be enough, imo. Just like the Croats, Romanians in Transylvania would decrease to be a secondary issue compared to the other, unplacated minorities. In the meantime, this would also lead to said minorities losing quite a bit of weight. Who knows, maybe that in turn could make the Magyar leadership feel less threatened by them, thus the 1868 minority law would be observed more strictly and perhaps the sub-county level administrative divisions would be drawn/modified more fairly in the later decades.

Nationalisms were pretty stupid, you had examples of people going against the interests of their own country in the name of it - for example Croatian nationalists, who aimed for union with Serbia and when it happened, they mostly regretted it, one of them allegedly said that things were better in Austro-Hungary for them than in Yugoslavia.
And Romanians had their own country outside of Austria-Hungary and I think at least some of them will still gravitate towards it.

Sure, there's that, but even in the case of Croatia, A-H had to lose the Great War first for such movements to be able to prevail.

As long as there's peace and relative prosperity, your average man will not be willing to support or engage in any real separatist activities if they're not significantly inconvinienced in their daily life.

Religion can also play a role here. Just think about the case of the Southern East Prussia referendum post-WW1. Afaik, more than half of Transylvanian Romanians were Greek Catholics at the time, while Romania was overwhelmingly Orthodox. Sure, it might not appear to be as stark of a difference as Catholicism vs Protestantism, but it's a factor nonetheless.


On another note, in Romania itself, calls for unification with Transylvania could be somewhat lessened by such policy as well. It would be harder to claim that their brothers and sisters are being oppressed, albeit they could still point at the non-Transylvanian Romanians in Hungary, but the effect wouldn't be the same. It would be harder to rile up irrendentist sentiment.

 

[Simreeve]

How many of the Magyars there would want an anschluss, though?

 

[Fehérvári]

How many of the Magyars there would want an anschluss, though?

Economically speaking, the deal would be favourable to them, furthermore the electoral census and possible cooperation with the Saxons would still allow them to dominate local politics. Furthermore, by the assembly itself sending delegates instead of direct elections, the local elite could have more direct influence over the Hungarian parliament.

For those who matter, it would be a good deal, so they would take it. Public sentiment could also be manipulated to endorse the idea.

 

[Nivek]

So what if Transylvania would had been granted similar status as Croatia-Slavonia within the Lands of the Hungarian Holy Crown AKA Transleithania following the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867?

- Hungarian, German and Romanian would all become official languages.
- There would be a Transylvanian assembly that would send delegates to the Hungarian Parliament.
- There would be a Transylvanian devolved government headed by the Voivode who is appointed by the King based on the Hungarian Prime Minister's recommendation.

How could this affect Hungary and Austria-Hungary as a whole in the coming decades? Effects abroad? Please tell me what you think!

No, Transylvania as an Romania polity was a post war myth, Transylvania were the land of Mattias Corvinus unlike the kingdom of Croatia, that's asking USA to split new York

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

Sure, there's that, but even in the case of Croatia, A-H had to lose the Great War first for such movements to be able to prevail.

As long as there's peace and relative prosperity, your average man will not be willing to support or engage in any real separatist activities if they're not significantly inconvinienced in their daily life.

Religion can also play a role here. Just think about the case of the Southern East Prussia referendum post-WW1. Afaik, more than half of Transylvanian Romanians were Greek Catholics at the time, while Romania was overwhelmingly Orthodox. Sure, it might not appear to be as stark of a difference as Catholicism vs Protestantism, but it's a factor nonetheless.


On another note, in Romania itself, calls for unification with Transylvania could be somewhat lessened by such policy as well. It would be harder to claim that their brothers and sisters are being oppressed, albeit they could still point at the non-Transylvanian Romanians in Hungary, but the effect wouldn't be the same. It would be harder to rile up irrendentist sentiment.

I didn't say it won't give anything. Well, as you said main trigger for collapse of Austro-Hungarian empire was Great War and I don't think that would be butterflied.
And if A-H will lose, who could really stop victors from taking over the lands they wanted? It's not like French, British etc. would care about average Transylvanian man and neither would Romanian government and hardcore ultranationalists wanting to create Greater Romania and these ultranationalists would present themselves as voice of Romanians and average man would not care much either way.
Yeah, they'd be lessened in peacetime but if Great War happens and they're victorious, they'd take it nonetheless.

 

[Fehérvári]

No, Transylvania as an Romania polity was a post war myth, Transylvania were the land of Mattias Corvinus unlike the kingdom of Croatia, that's asking USA to split new York

? What Romania polity? Transylvania was always an autonomous entity within Hungary. It would just simply retain its old status, essentially. The Romanian language becoming one of the three official languages of the region (alongside with Hungarian and German) is just the aknowledgement of the facts on the ground. There were atleast as many Romanian-speakers as Hungarian- and German-speakers combined.

This much won't make it become a "Romania polity".

I didn't say it won't give anything. Well, as you said main trigger for collapse of Austro-Hungarian empire was Great War and I don't think that would be butterflied.
And if A-H will lose, who could really stop victors from taking over the lands they wanted? It's not like French, British etc. would care about average Transylvanian man and neither would Romanian government and hardcore ultranationalists wanting to create Greater Romania and these ultranationalists would present themselves as voice of Romanians and average man would not care much either way.
Yeah, they'd be lessened in peacetime but if Great War happens and they're victorious, they'd take it nonetheless.

Fair enough.

With that being said, the lessened weight of (and fear from) minorities I mentioned above could lead to the liberalisation of Hungarian electoral laws (to some degree). Such thing could lead to some significant changes in the Hungarian parliamentary balance of power.

With the political crisis of 1905-'06 and the nationalist government of 1906-'10 being subject to butterfly-hazards, it's quite likely that Hungary ITTL wouldn't keep torpedoing the modernisation and enlargement of the A-H armed forces through the 1900s.

 

[Droman]

A Principality of Transylvania in Union with the Kingdom of Hungary isn't beyond the bounds of reason, IMO.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

? What Romania polity?

Adding to that, it's untrue that kingdom of Croatia wasn't "land of Matthias Corvinus", Matthias Corvinus was king of Croatia as well and Croatia was in union with Hungary since...early Middle Ages (XIIth century if I am not mistaken). And citing Corvinus as proof of Hungarianness of Transylvania is IMHO bad argument considering his family only recently (Corvinus's grandfather moved to Hungary from Wallachian, and Corvinus himself was repeatedly insulted as "Wallachian" even though he identified himself with Hungary), house of Arpad is better proof of Hungarianness, it's Hungarian to the bone.

Fair enough.

With that being said, the lessened weight of (and fear from) minorities I mentioned above could lead to the liberalisation of Hungarian electoral laws (to some degree). Such thing could lead to some significant changes in the Hungarian parliamentary balance of power.

With the political crisis of 1905-'06 and the nationalist government of 1906-'10 being subject to butterfly-hazards, it's quite likely that Hungary ITTL wouldn't keep torpedoing the modernisation and enlargement of the A-H armed forces through the 1900s.

Hmmm...could do. But IMHO even somewhat liberalized A-H wouldn't weight where it really mattered (on Western Front where Central Powers lost), tho stronger A-H might have effects on CP's policies on former Russian lands, maybe Charles Stephen (archduke of Żywiec/Saybusch) would be proclaimed king of Poland, where Wilhelm (the archduke fascinated with Ukrainian culture) would be proclaimed king of Ukraine?

 

[Fehérvári]

Hmmm...could do. But IMHO even somewhat liberalized A-H wouldn't weight where it really mattered (on Western Front where Central Powers lost)

A lot would depend on the actions of Italy. If Italy maintains its neutrality because A-H doesn't seem so vulnerable like IOTL, that opens up many possibilities.

stronger A-H might have effects on CP's policies on former Russian lands, maybe Charles Stephen (archduke of Żywiec/Saybusch) would be proclaimed king of Poland, where Wilhelm (the archduke fascinated with Ukrainian culture) would be proclaimed king of Ukraine?

I guess it would depend on the exact circumstances. The Polish throne would be far more easier to secure though.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

With the political crisis of 1905-'06 and the nationalist government of 1906-'10 being subject to butterfly-hazards, it's quite likely that Hungary ITTL wouldn't keep torpedoing the modernisation and enlargement of the A-H armed forces through the 1900s.

If it hadn't been for the old guard around FJ, Austria-Hungary would've had tanks by 1911 already. The old guard (who were mostly cavalry officers IIRC), persuaded him to decline* and focus on building armoured trains instead.

*It wasn't actually a decline, it was more just a refusal of the government to foot the bill for the prototype. Bustyn - the designer - was told that if he could produce the design himself, they might consider it. He couldn't so the project fell flat. But at the same time Bustyn was involved in the tank development of the German wehrmacht of WW2 and his designs met with the approval of Hitler and the High Command (despite Bustyn being half-Jewish) so that could've made for interestig times for A-H in WW1 if Franz Ferdinand and the "young court" had won out.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

A lot would depend on the actions of Italy. If Italy maintains its neutrality because A-H doesn't seem so vulnerable like IOTL, that opens up many possibilities.

I'm not really convinced about this, the war was decided upon in France and IMHO after USA involved itself in war it was pretty much lost case for Germans. Though I suppose A-H's attempt to make separatist peace could be more succesful ITTL.

I guess it would depend on the exact circumstances. The Polish throne would be far more easier to secure though.

Yeah and there was far more support for Habsburg among Poles than among Ukrainians.