Would Germany Ever Split Up Austria-Hungary?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
IF Germany is going to split up AH, they would try to do it in such a way that Italy comes out as an ally. That means that Italy gets most or all of Küstenland, Trentino (or even all of Southern Tyrol), probably all of Dalmatia. So Germany can only get a port on the Med in Fiume or South on the Croatian coastline which IOTL belonged to Hungary (probably with Italy getting the islands before it to make it a commercial harbour only).



I doubt if this would be possible. The Germans there have no continuous settlement area, their settlements are predominantly rural, you'd have a lot of micro-states with a still ethnically mixed population. In any case, most of those micro-states would evolve on Hungarian territory. IF the Germans are about to partition AH, they'd side with Hungarian nationalists during that and these would want to keep as much from Hungary as possible.
I somehow doubt that the Germans would last much longer against Magyar nationalists than the other groups had. Fiume had Corpus separatum due to the Hungarians trying to claim all of Croatia, Slavonia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Dalmatia as being part of a state that had once been in personal union with them and being given access to a port shut them up a bit. I also rather doubted the chance of many German states being set up, as they were there from long before the concept of German nationalism and might have simply been placed on the maps of the country whether or not they made actual majorities. Still, it would be a hassle to keep them there and population exchanges could only go so far. Any suggestion on where the people could be moved to?
 
Taking in consideration a scenario of 'controlled demolition' after a period of civil unreast and constitutional impasse due the intervention on Hungary to suppres the noble revolt and the following request by all the other minority of assurance and rights and the unsatisfactory answer of the Hasburg. Germany will try to support the Empire for a while, but between the fact that is a costly hard and long work, many of the German goverment and imperial circle started to believe that by now A-H cannot be saved and is better use the occasion to forge an alliance with more stable nation.
Calling for a new European Congress (after a lot of 'suggestion' by the other european capitals) a proposed division of A-H is drafted.
- Germany will get proper Austria (plus South Tyrol and the northern part of actual Slovenia) and the Sudetenland, they will form a duchy with an Hasburg in charge.
- Italy will get Trentino (but with a borderline favorable, in defensive term, to Germany), all the Kustenland and part of Dalmatia (basically what Italy get during WWII).
- Fiume will remain with Croatia as the port of the nation.
- Serbia (who will probably try to inglobe Montenegro) will divide Bosnia with the new nation of Croatia.
-Galicia go to Russia
- Czech will be an autonomous protectorate of the German reich with lot of internal authonomy (basically think Finland in the cold war).
- Hungary get the OTL 1944 border.
By coincidence Italy sign a new alliance with Germany just a month after the congress, with Hungary and Croatia as junior patner. Rumors indicated that overture are be done towards Russia regarding at least a non-aggression pact.
 
The personal factor goes against this: the Kaiser and Franz Ferdinand were friends.

Serbia was a French client; it's therefore unlikely that Germany would want to see it aggrandized in a partition of Austria Hungary.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Germany would try to keep AH together, at least as long as the Kaiser and the Junkers have anything to say. AH is that poor cousin you need on your side even if he suck badly, since it's better that he's there than standing alone.

If AH start to collapsing on itself Germany would definitely intervene to save what can be saved, and take the spoils if it's beyond redemption.
 
Interestingly enough I found that there were a fringe group of ultra-conservatives which supported a coup d'etat by the emperor which should have led to an annexation of German-Austria, an alliance with Russia and a complete overhaul of the Empire's structures. This idea was brought up by Julius von Verdy du Vernois in a letter to Count Waldersee in 1897, who also supported a coup d'etat, primarily because he feared the influence of social-democracy. Might be an interesting PoD, but it seems that this was a real fringe group and the emperor lacked the decisiveness to go through with something like this.

Kind regards,
G.
 
Interestingly enough I found that there were a fringe group of ultra-conservatives which supported a coup d'etat by the emperor which should have led to an annexation of German-Austria, an alliance with Russia and a complete overhaul of the Empire's structures. This idea was brought up by Julius von Verdy du Vernois in a letter to Count Waldersee in 1897, who also supported a coup d'etat, primarily because he feared the influence of social-democracy. Might be an interesting PoD, but it seems that this was a real fringe group and the emperor lacked the decisiveness to go through with something like this.

Kind regards,
G.

This is a very risky move, as the other powers in Europe will want to have a say about that. It's extremely probable that a congress will be called for the division of A-H and will be long and diplomatically very nasty...if things go really sour a world war is on the horizon
 
Interestingly enough I found that there were a fringe group of ultra-conservatives which supported a coup d'etat by the emperor which should have led to an annexation of German-Austria, an alliance with Russia and a complete overhaul of the Empire's structures. This idea was brought up by Julius von Verdy du Vernois in a letter to Count Waldersee in 1897, who also supported a coup d'etat, primarily because he feared the influence of social-democracy. Might be an interesting PoD, but it seems that this was a real fringe group and the emperor lacked the decisiveness to go through with something like this.

Kind regards,
G.

Do you have any links where I could read up more about this? Especially about the fringe group of ultra-conservatives and Julius von Verdy du Vernois' letter of 1897?
 
Germany would try to keep AH together, at least as long as the Kaiser and the Junkers have anything to say. AH is that poor cousin you need on your side even if he suck badly, since it's better that he's there than standing alone.

If AH start to collapsing on itself Germany would definitely intervene to save what can be saved, and take the spoils if it's beyond redemption.

That's a good picture: you'll let that cousin fall once he becomes to much of a burden (and with AH and the economic problems after WWI that situation is more likely than not), and you wouldn't want that cousin to clean up, shave, take a job and starting his own life: he has to remain the poorer cousin at your side.

AH may only survive if it barely holds on with some small German help but never really succeeds. What a fate...:rolleyes:
 
Do you have any links where I could read up more about this? Especially about the fringe group of ultra-conservatives and Julius von Verdy du Vernois' letter of 1897?
Sorry, no link. That was in a book about German army planning and army armament in the Empire, the book is in German: [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Stein, Oliver, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Die deutsche Heeresrüstungspolitik 1890 – 1914[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif], Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn 2007.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]It was more an off-side remark, with a footnote directly quoting the primary source, the letter, which was part of an public archive IIRC. But I can give you the pages and the footnote and more details tomorrow. It was just something I came across, doing research for my TL.[/FONT]

Edit: I think you can find more about Count Waldersee. I encountered him several times in my research. On the other hand this remark was the first time I heard of Julius von Verdy du Vernois.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Kind regards,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]G.
[/FONT]
 
Sorry, no link. That was in a book about German army planning and army armament in the Empire, the book is in German: [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Stein, Oliver, [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Die deutsche Heeresrüstungspolitik 1890 – 1914[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif], Ferdinand Schöningh Paderborn 2007.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]It was more an off-side remark, with a footnote directly quoting the primary source, the letter, which was part of an public archive IIRC. But I can give you the pages and the footnote and more details tomorrow. It was just something I came across, doing research for my TL.[/FONT]

Would very much appreciate that. :D
 
Would very much appreciate that. :D
OK, here it goes:

Some hints on Count Waldersee's plan of a "judgement day" for the social democracy can be found on pp. 82 f. The whole chapter - "I. 2. E) The army as civil war force? - The army and its domestic deployment" (pp. 81 ff.) discusses how far the military leadership and the "ultra-conservatives" would have gone to suppress the social-democratic movement. In essence Stein argues, that the army was less inclined to shoot on civilians than some historians and researchers of German imperial militarism seem to think. He gives Waldersee as a person with an "extreme position" who knew that other people might call him "crazy or unbelievable evil". Stein says that during the strike of dock workers in Hamburg in 1896/97 Waldersee was commander of the troops there, but he did not use them to cancel the strike, in spite of his personal believes. Stein thus counters the argument of some historians that only the local commanders prevented a bloodbath. According to Stein there was much bolstering talk but no action from the "ultra-conservatives". Stein further argues that the military leadership saw their primary duty to defend the German Empire against external foes. They saw the social-democratic movement just as an internal friction to be dealt with, when they prove to be a problem during war. Stein attributes most of the more extreme talks to the strike event in Hamburg.

Stein references the following book as source for his primary sources by Waldersee:
Meisner, Heinrich Otto (edit.), Denkwürdigkeiten des General-Feldmarschalls Alfred Grafen von Waldersee, 3 volumes, Stuttgart/Berlin 1923.

The Julius von Verdy du Vernois remark can be found on pp. 218 f. It is referenced with the following archive notation: GStA VI HA NL Waldersee BI Nr. 53, fol. 99-102 in footnote 393. The abbreviation stands for Geheimes Staatsarchiv Berlin - NL Waldersee refers to Nachlass (inheritance). The letter was written on Feb 25 1897 to Waldersee.

Stein's doctoral thesis won the Werner-Hahlweg-Price and was highly praised for the thorough research and new takes on the decision making process with regards to armament and war planning in imperial Germany.

Here is a link to Waldersee in the German wikipedia. The English article has less information. Here is a link to the dock worker strike in Hamburg in German wikipedia (no english article on that one).

I hope that helped. If you have additional questions, I will be glad to answer them.

Kind regards,
G.
 
Last edited:
I already marked this option. Do you think it is viable?

kleindeutsche-grossdeutsche.gif


A Confederation between Germany and ( reformed ) Greater Austria.

From pan-German point of view it would be the stable compromise between the northern ( Kleindeutsche Lösung ) and southern ( Großdeutsche Lösung ) German nationalist stances. Both dynasties survive within the system without their prestige to be harmed - a Union between two Kaiserreich-s: Germany predominantly ethincally German & ( Greater ) Austria - the second with substantial German minority still forming the economical, political and military elite. Within the Confederation the non-German peoples enjoy their distinctiveness in fairly ( in irredentist way ) borderlined constituent countries ( i.e. local nationalisms find support in the system ) and simultaneously they enjoy the access to the common market and other benefits of the union between the 2 empires. Nobody loses anything except the Hungarians whose "empire" is trimmed down to the Hungarian ethnic lands.

ALSO, as I remarked already the ethnic Austrian constitutents are very strong "application" for further integration of the bordering nations within the Austrian Empire and the Union. Per instance:
- the Greater Austrian State of Transilvania would be a Romanian nation. With population much much better off and enjoying higher degree of living standard and liberty and democracy and rule of law than in the freshly created independent Kingdom of Romania. There SHALL BE pressure the non-Austrian Romanians to join Greater Austria, cause the Romanian nationalist agendas will meet better realization WITHIN Greater Austria then as a neighbour of the giant.

Thus German-Austrian Union can "buy out" the local nationalisms in Central and Eastern Europe by offering BETTER solution for them as it is for the Pan-Germanism.

Nevertheless, such perfect balance between ( democratic ) Imperialism and Nationalism would be backed by the economical power of GE ( German Empire ) -GA ( Greater Austria ) Union.

The consequences would be very substantial. The GE-GA giant would thus possess ENORMOUS charge of soft power. Directing the expansion along these lines may make GE-GA much less inclined to go overseas, thus eliminating big source of conflicts with the Sea powers.

One very far-fetched consequence would be the Three Emperors Union to survive, and between 1905-1925 Russia ( which would inevitably implode due to their failure to modernize socially, technologically, etc. ), the GE-GA to intervene as "peacekeapers" and to reform ( dynastically and constitutionally ) the remnants of the Russian Empire, integrating it as a "third member" of the Union.
 
OK, here it goes:

Some hints on Count Waldersee's plan of a "judgement day" for the social democracy can be found on pp. 82 f. The whole chapter - "I. 2. E) The army as civil war force? - The army and its domestic deployment" (pp. 81 ff.) discusses how far the military leadership and the "ultra-conservatives" would have gone to suppress the social-democratic movement. In essence Stein argues, that the army was less inclined to shoot on civilians than some historians............German wikipedia (no english article on that one).

I hope that helped. If you have additional questions, I will be glad to answer them.

Kind regards,
G.

Much appreciated.

Was there any indication in the letter of what was meant by "German-Austria"? Was it to include the Austrian part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (and thus including Galicia, Bohemia, Moravia, etc) or was it to include only what is now Austria? Was there any indication of what was to be done with Bohemia and Moravia? And to the rest of the Empire?
 
Much appreciated.

Was there any indication in the letter of what was meant by "German-Austria"? Was it to include the Austrian part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (and thus including Galicia, Bohemia, Moravia, etc) or was it to include only what is now Austria? Was there any indication of what was to be done with Bohemia and Moravia? And to the rest of the Empire?


In common parlance at that time, it would have meant those parts of Austria formerly included in the German Confederation, ie Bohemia, Moravia, Carniola and Trieste, but not Galicia or Dalmatia.
 
Much appreciated.

Was there any indication in the letter of what was meant by "German-Austria"? Was it to include the Austrian part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (and thus including Galicia, Bohemia, Moravia, etc) or was it to include only what is now Austria? Was there any indication of what was to be done with Bohemia and Moravia? And to the rest of the Empire?
There might have been - but the letter is just given as a reference for its three main bullet points I mentioned earlier. It was a four to five sentences off-hand remark on the influence of "ultra-conservatives" on the army bills.

So no details in Stein's book. I can try to get my hand on the original text pf the letter, but that might prove difficult, because I doubt they are easily accessible via the internet or my university library.

Without further information I concur with Mikestone8's assessment.

Kind regards,
G.

Kind regards,
G.
 
But, Galicia and Dalmatia in this case given to whom?
Sinse Stein says that Julius von Verdy mentioned an alliance with Russia, at least for Galicia there is a good guess. Dalmatia might become its own puupet state or be given to Serbia or whatever other successir state form on the Balkans. But since I only have a one-sentence summary of the letter, which consists of three bullet points, I can only assume.

Kind regards,
G.
 
But why Germans would voluntary canibalize ANY part of their Austria-Hungary to feed the petty neighbours and to make them stronger nuisance?
 
But why Germans would voluntary canibalize ANY part of their Austria-Hungary to feed the petty neighbours and to make them stronger nuisance?

Because after a while it will be a full time work try to prop up (but never enough to be too autonomous) the A-H empire and Germany have other things to worry, better keep the best part and be done for it. Secondly if it done after a CP victory scenario, well a lot of lesser nation (who had problem with each others) are more easily controlled and keeped down than one big, if there is no wwi this is the perfect occasion for patch things up with Russia and bring Italy back in an alliance, plus many of the new nation as junior patner.
 
lukedalton,

exactly my point. junior and senior partners need a pact-constitutional frame, and namely A-H-reformed into Greater Austria could be the vessel and frame and instrument for holding the dependencies together.

THUS the nationalities are kept separate TOGETHER almost exactly on the real geographical ethic boundaries.

The instrument Greater Austria can thus even expand without this to be considered act of aggression , suppression, etc.

Especially in the warlike and turbulent Balkans, the peoples at the end shall be happy to live in perfectly carved mono-ethnic territories BUT still with full access to the markets and good organization comming from Berlin via Vienna. All of them will be more than happy with replacement of their "native" monarchs with the Habsburg Emperor in Vienna.
 
Top