My Thoughts on the Reformation of the Austro-Hungarian Empire

[Sarthak]

So i recently was able to meet an old Czech man in Brno whose father and grandfather lived during the times of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was pretty enlightening. A-H did have its ethnic problems yes, however it seems their shared ties to the crown did inspire a lot of loyalty to the empire and the man's grand father was also an officer in the Eastern Front of ww1 in the K.u.K.

So there have been many A-H reform threads, but this is my theoretical reform plan with a Post-1900 PoD(s):-

1. The Federalization plan always gets a lot of attention but i do not think that the federalization plan was realistic. At least not in the manner that the Austrians made it. Therefore my plan to get rid a lot of the ethnic strife is implementing National Personal Autonomy plan would be better for the country. Much like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia etc. It was actually proposed in Austria but was shot down. So first lets get this on the way.

2. Economics - more stimuli plans were shot down by the Austrian HoL in 1907. Passing them could have granted the A-H economy grow by 1% or 2% more than otl, which would be good.

3. Continue the otl path other than that.

What are your thoughts on it? What are your reform plans?

 

[NoMommsen]

... just wonder about your 1. point :

how would you get tthe overwhelmingly conservative civil service and to a great extend nobil politicians within Austria as well as Hungary - not to say within the k.u.k administration - to not only accept but implement principles discussed by spawns of political hell :​

SOCIALISTS !!! uhhhhh ... and not even agreed upon between them ?​

It IS an interesting and praiseworthy idea without a doubt ... but as utopian as a functioning socialist or even communist society.
The humans as such are simply though unfortunatly not made for such highflying too 'philosophical' treats.

 

[Plundenoru]

Wasn't Hungary staunchly opposed to basically any kind of reform that would alter the status quo?

 

[Sarthak]

... just wonder about your 1. point :

how would you get tthe overwhelmingly conservative civil service and to a great extend nobil politicians within Austria as well as Hungary - not to say within the k.u.k administration - to not only accept but implement principles discussed by spawns of political hell :​

SOCIALISTS !!! uhhhhh ... and not even agreed upon between them ?​

It IS an interesting and praiseworthy idea without a doubt ... but as utopian as a functioning socialist or even communist society.
The humans as such are simply though unfortunatly not made for such highflying too 'philosophical' treats.

Actually while it may be linked into Austromarxism, according to The First World War and the End of the Habsburg Monarchy the idea of a national personal autonomy plan was backed by the Social Democrats and many members of the CS as well. Dialogue was opened in 1912 in Ciselthania but it did not lead anywhere because of the arms budget and arms negotiations that came into the forefront otl. So while yes it may have been made by austromarxists, the government did give a good amount of thought to the idea.

 

[Sarthak]

Wasn't Hungary staunchly opposed to basically any kind of reform that would alter the status quo?

well, the first hurdle is to get Ciselthania to accept the reform.
It wasn't the Hungarian Diet that was opposed to any reform, it was more or less the Hungarian Magnates. The upper house. Nonetheless, yes they will remain strong opponents.

 

[Othala]

The social-democrat clique around Renner and Bauer OTL managed to push through universal male suffrage in 1907, so it's not some kind of far-left extremist proposing this. I'm also not surprised that it's supported by SP and CS, though I'd have to look further into it to make any real judgment, since it seems to help large scale pan-national movements over nationalist splinter or single issue parties. It however goes against inertia of the Empire. The Empire is a collection of territories held together by the person of the Monarch, it is deeply rooted in old Feudalism. The only significant counter movements to that viewpoint at the time were the nation state and the socialist internationalists.

So yeah, possible, both to get it through and it working. But you better avoid a four year war and all the suffering that came with it, since that strengthens the nationalist cause.

And as mentioned, the best way to get it through in the Hungarian part would be to neutralise the Magnates. If they can rally the Hungarian people to their cause anyway, you might still prevail by appealing to the Croats, Slovaks, Romanians and Germans in the Hungarian half of the Dual Monarchy.

 

[Gukpard]

So i recently was able to meet an old Czech man in Brno whose father and grandfather lived during the times of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was pretty enlightening. A-H did have its ethnic problems yes, however it seems their shared ties to the crown did inspire a lot of loyalty to the empire and the man's grand father was also an officer in the Eastern Front of ww1 in the K.u.K.

The TIK made a video about the dissolution of the Austrian hungarian empire, attacking directly the belief (or myth) that it was nationalism that destroyed it, classifing that as post dissolution nationalist propaganda created by these new independent states:

 

[WinRar Archivist]

I don't think that would work.
Allow me to exagerate by stating that I firmly believe that Austria-Hungary could prevail only if there were no Hungary. A federal plan would work if the Hungarians did not oppose it. If a federal plan would have been implemented, Hungarians would have grumbled incessantly and continue to be a pain in the ass of the Empire.

National Personal Autonomy sound nice, even utopic but what you fail to state is the implementation of such a plan. How would administration, educational,the judicial power, taxes etc would work. How would local administration managed when it's inhabitants belong to three separate nations ?

Inter-national problems which would be many in the most ethnically diverse regions of the Empire would have to be handled by a central organism for it to be unbiased, undercutting autonomy.
And last, I believe the many compromises towards Hungary led to bad feeling from Slavs , Romanians etc for the conception of a territorial nation to be given up so freely and the Hungarians too would not abandon the myth of the Crown of Saint Stephen so easily.

 

[WinRar Archivist]

The TIK made a video about the dissolution of the Austrian hungarian empire, attacking directly the belief (or myth) that it was nationalism that destroyed it, classifing that as post dissolution nationalist propaganda created by these new independent states:

I have watched the relevant section of the video about nationalism, and I believe he oversimplifies the issue. The fact that the succesor states were multi-ethnic does not destroy the nationalist argument. The territories that became succesor states or went to other states had minorities, but they also had a majority. That majority , by virtue of being a majority therefore ruled, and imposed it's own language and in time it's own political and cultural institutions.
While the Chzechs and Slovaks were two ethnicities they were both Slavs, as the Yugoslavs, Romanian may have had a Hungarian majority but Romanian national sentiment ruled the country. Large minorities aside, a Us vs Them mentality existed both before and after, and contributed to the fall of the Empire.

Throwing all of this to national propaganda also ignores the pre-WW1 national movements in all the corner of Austro-Hungary, wich are well documented and in no way propaganda.

Also, nationalism need not be the only reason for the fall. Any event has a multitude of reasons for it to happen. What led to the downfall of the Empire was a multitude of factors, among them being nationalism.

 

[Gukpard]

Also, nationalism need not be the only reason for the fall. Any event has a multitude of reasons for it to happen. What led to the downfall of the Empire was a multitude of factors, among them being nationalism.

That is his argument, the downfall came not due nationalism, but due the war exaustion

Assuming there is no war, or it doesn't goes too far, the state can in theory survives until the modern day

 

[WinRar Archivist]

That is his argument, the downfall came not due nationalism, but due the war exaustion

Assuming there is no war, or it doesn't goes too far, the state can in theory survives until the modern day

And my argument is that due to the war exhaustion, it was easy for nationalism to do the deed.
In theory the state may have survived but certainly not in that form.

 

[Atterdag]

The TIK made a video about the dissolution of the Austrian hungarian empire, attacking directly the belief (or myth) that it was nationalism that destroyed it, classifing that as post dissolution nationalist propaganda created by these new independent states:

I think he makes a decent point in that many post-war states benefitted from pushing a nationalistic narrative on the downfall of the Empire. However I don't think it can be written off to the degree he's doing it, and his tirade about socialism just makes no sense to me.

 

[Sarthak]

I don't think that would work.
Allow me to exagerate by stating that I firmly believe that Austria-Hungary could prevail only if there were no Hungary. A federal plan would work if the Hungarians did not oppose it. If a federal plan would have been implemented, Hungarians would have grumbled incessantly and continue to be a pain in the ass of the Empire.

National Personal Autonomy sound nice, even utopic but what you fail to state is the implementation of such a plan. How would administration, educational,the judicial power, taxes etc would work. How would local administration managed when it's inhabitants belong to three separate nations ?

Inter-national problems which would be many in the most ethnically diverse regions of the Empire would have to be handled by a central organism for it to be unbiased, undercutting autonomy.
And last, I believe the many compromises towards Hungary led to bad feeling from Slavs , Romanians etc for the conception of a territorial nation to be given up so freely and the Hungarians too would not abandon the myth of the Crown of Saint Stephen so easily.

it would be implemented in the same mannner it is implemented in hungary, estonia, latvia, lithuania and russia today. At least that was the plan.

National Minorities Cultural Autonomy Act

MINELRES - Minority related national legislation - Ukraine - Minorities

MINELRES - Minority related national legislation - Lithuania - Law on Ethnic Minorities

 

[Sarthak]

The TIK made a video about the dissolution of the Austrian hungarian empire, attacking directly the belief (or myth) that it was nationalism that destroyed it, classifing that as post dissolution nationalist propaganda created by these new independent states:

I have watched the relevant section of the video about nationalism, and I believe he oversimplifies the issue. The fact that the succesor states were multi-ethnic does not destroy the nationalist argument. The territories that became succesor states or went to other states had minorities, but they also had a majority. That majority , by virtue of being a majority therefore ruled, and imposed it's own language and in time it's own political and cultural institutions.
While the Chzechs and Slovaks were two ethnicities they were both Slavs, as the Yugoslavs, Romanian may have had a Hungarian majority but Romanian national sentiment ruled the country. Large minorities aside, a Us vs Them mentality existed both before and after, and contributed to the fall of the Empire.

Throwing all of this to national propaganda also ignores the pre-WW1 national movements in all the corner of Austro-Hungary, wich are well documented and in no way propaganda.

Also, nationalism need not be the only reason for the fall. Any event has a multitude of reasons for it to happen. What led to the downfall of the Empire was a multitude of factors, among them being nationalism.

That is his argument, the downfall came not due nationalism, but due the war exaustion

Assuming there is no war, or it doesn't goes too far, the state can in theory survives until the modern day

And my argument is that due to the war exhaustion, it was easy for nationalism to do the deed.
In theory the state may have survived but certainly not in that form.

I think he makes a decent point in that many post-war states benefitted from pushing a nationalistic narrative on the downfall of the Empire. However I don't think it can be written off to the degree he's doing it, and his tirade about socialism just makes no sense to me.

Nationalism did play a part in the fall of the Austro-Hungarian empire. But it has been over-exaggerated to the point of ridiculous in may contexts

 

[Aghasverov]

I have watched the relevant section of the video about nationalism, and I believe he oversimplifies the issue. The fact that the succesor states were multi-ethnic does not destroy the nationalist argument. The territories that became succesor states or went to other states had minorities, but they also had a majority. That majority , by virtue of being a majority therefore ruled, and imposed it's own language and in time it's own political and cultural institutions.
While the Chzechs and Slovaks were two ethnicities they were both Slavs, as the Yugoslavs, Romanian may have had a Hungarian majority but Romanian national sentiment ruled the country. Large minorities aside, a Us vs Them mentality existed both before and after, and contributed to the fall of the Empire.

Throwing all of this to national propaganda also ignores the pre-WW1 national movements in all the corner of Austro-Hungary, wich are well documented and in no way propaganda.

Also, nationalism need not be the only reason for the fall. Any event has a multitude of reasons for it to happen. What led to the downfall of the Empire was a multitude of factors, among them being nationalism.

Yeah, but the thing about the pre-WWI national movements, is that a great many of the ethnic minorities of the Empire would've been content with greater regional autonomy, and a more equitable distribution of the legislative seats (particularly in Transleithania) and more evenly-balanced "power sharing" in general. The whole idea of breaking off into fully independent nation states was viewed by many as a pipe dream, and a potentially dangerous one at that - a new small weak state could easily be swallowed up by a larger one, and not necessarily one you wanted to be a part of. It wasn't until the collapse at the end of the War that the idea that "self-determination" meant full independence really came to the fore - and in that it had a lot of "help" from the western entente powers, and Wilson and House and their ilk.

 

[oofo]

Trialism was the way for A-H to go in my opinion (and the way it started to go in the days before it fell apart). Combine Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina into a 3rd union state, called the Triune Kingdom/Lands of the Crown of Zvonimir.

 

[WinRar Archivist]

Yeah, but the thing about the pre-WWI national movements, is that a great many of the ethnic minorities of the Empire would've been content with greater regional autonomy, and a more equitable distribution of the legislative seats (particularly in Transleithania) and more evenly-balanced "power sharing" in general. The whole idea of breaking off into fully independent nation states was viewed by many as a pipe dream, and a potentially dangerous one at that - a new small weak state could easily be swallowed up by a larger one, and not necessarily one you wanted to be a part of. It wasn't until the collapse at the end of the War that the idea that "self-determination" meant full independence really came to the fore - and in that it had a lot of "help" from the western entente powers, and Wilson and House and their ilk.

I know that. I said that nationalism became a greater issue after A-H was defeated.

 

[von Adler]

By 1914, Franz Ferdinand had abandoned the idea of a triple monarchy and were thinking centralisation on the imperial level and decentralisation on the regional level - ie one imperial diet in Vienna to handle any imperial affairs including railroads, postal system, currency, foreign policy, army (both local defence and imperial), security, higher education, trade and so on, while local institutions could handle local issues such as lower education, religion and so on.

The Germans were in this era adamant about supporting Austria-Hungary since it was really their only friend and it was seen as a useful tool to control the Balkans and help balance against a growing Russia - Germany wanted one strong ally to negotiate with rather than a dozen or more small powers that could be bullied by Russia or end up in strife against each other.

My take is that Franz Ferdinand probably would delay his Hungarian coronation and the 1917 ausgleich, demanding wide-ranging concessions from the Hungarians and probably goad them into a revolt. By gerrymandering and disenfranchisement of non-land-holders, the Hungarian nobility controlled 90% of the seats in the Hungarian parliament - so while they and some nationalists may want Hungarian independence, they face the same problems as 1848 - no foreign support, minorities with a lot to gain to not help them (Romanians, Slovaks, Croats) and at this time an imperial army that has the full support of Germany (which will make sure that any foreign intervention is out of the question - Italy, Serbia and Romania will sit down, thank you very much) and is fully prepared for what is to come - and with no revolts at home to take care of.

Hungary lacks the industry and modern military establishment to resist for long, especially as they might very well face desertions and strikes as socialists and liberals will be enticed about imperial promises of universal male suffrage and perhaps even land reform.

700 000 Hungarian speakers left Hungary for the US 1880-1914, or 7% of the population. Large parts of Hungary were voting against the Magnates with their feet. Remember that 1918 the communists could take Hungary over because most people were so fed up with the Magnates and their policies. So don't over-estimate the power of the Hungarian nationalists.

 

[Othala]

Yeah, but the thing about the pre-WWI national movements, is that a great many of the ethnic minorities of the Empire would've been content with greater regional autonomy, and a more equitable distribution of the legislative seats (particularly in Transleithania) and more evenly-balanced "power sharing" in general. The whole idea of breaking off into fully independent nation states was viewed by many as a pipe dream, and a potentially dangerous one at that - a new small weak state could easily be swallowed up by a larger one, and not necessarily one you wanted to be a part of. It wasn't until the collapse at the end of the War that the idea that "self-determination" meant full independence really came to the fore - and in that it had a lot of "help" from the western entente powers, and Wilson and House and their ilk.

Considering all the post-WWI fears about the new nations not being economically viable (though a lot of those had other political considerations) the push for greater autonomy is always the easier goal than full independence. However there were also groups that felt they could be part of something other greater.
Obviously there were groups such as the Italians, Romanians or Germans (though those far from as clear cut) who had their own already existing nation states. Similar were the Poles, who while amongst the most loyal subject people, would have certainly changed their tune if a Polish nation state was re-established out Russian, Prussian or both Partitions. Serbia was a bit more difficult, between actual Serbs, Bosniak Serbs and a generally South Slavic movement. But for a varity of reasons they were in the end ones to pull the trigger that lead to WWI.
And then there were the greater movements. South Slavic was already mentioned, but amongst Czechs and even more so Slovaks pan-Slavic sentiments were quite wide spread. Not too sure on the exact details, but the campaigned for a Slavic Russian superstate. I know some thought that a unified Slavic state would lead to an assimilation into some kind of pan-Slavic common culture and language or simply into Russian identity, but I'm not too sure if there were pan-Slavic federalists as well.
Hungarians are their own chapter as well.

So yes, there were nationalist movements that wanted to break up the Habsburg Empire, but mostly under the impression that they'd have their ready made Greater Successor State already somewhere out there.

Trialism was the way for A-H to go in my opinion (and the way it started to go in the days before it fell apart). Combine Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina into a 3rd union state, called the Triune Kingdom/Lands of the Crown of Zvonimir.

And that leaves the big problem of the Czechs. Because measured by GDP Bohemia alone is probably worth more than the mentioned areas together (offhand, if someone actually checks please correct me), and there was an active nationalist movement there too. Though aside from the exiles most of them would likely be happy with greater autonomy.

 

[Sarthak]

Trialism was the way for A-H to go in my opinion (and the way it started to go in the days before it fell apart). Combine Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina into a 3rd union state, called the Triune Kingdom/Lands of the Crown of Zvonimir.

trialism sounds good on paper, but the issue of Bohemia comes forward if it does come up as well.