ljadw wrote: ↑18 Apr 2021, 12:27
Romania demanded Transylvania and got it in 1918.Thus Romania,and not Serbia, was the enemy of Hungary.
I did not say it was Serbia, and I deny the assumption that it was "Hungary".
ljadw wrote: ↑18 Apr 2021, 12:27
That Hungary was not a sovereign state in 1914 ,is not correct . It was de facto sovereign,this process started with the Ausgleich of 1867 and that was accelerating .
We are diving deep here into linguistics; "Hungary", as Saint Stephan founded it, was a multiethnic state that occupied the Carpathian Basin, and continued to exist in an administrative form even after its dissolution in 1526. Transsylvania existed as a vassal or tributary state of the Ottoman Empire until the Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699, and some of the southern part of the St. Stephen's kingdom did not return to Habsburg rule until Treaty of Passarowitz in 1718. Also, administratively, the Military Frontier did not return to Hungarian civil administration until 1867/1868.
The point is that "Hungary" - or Uhorsko in Slovak - was the St. Stephan's multiethnic state. Magyarország - or Madarsko in Slovak - however, meant a Magyar national state, which had no continuity and legitimate claim to the lands of the multiethnic medieval kingdom of St. Stephan.
You are talking about a national state of the Magyars, which is Magyarország, not Hungary; Hungary was and is different, and thus, as a medieval entity, belonged to the Habsburg crown. If the Magyars tried to overplay their hand as Magyars (and not as Hungarians), the Habsburg King of Hungary (Ferdinand V.) was exchanged to Franz Joseph, and the Magyar claim to Hungary was shattered, with the help of the nationalities and the Russians.
By the way, this is nothing new under the sun; Scotts don't like to be confused with English, and Ukrainians don't like to be confused with Russians. Therefore, I don't use "English" for the people of the British Empire, and I don't use "Russian" for the people of the Soviet Union.
ljadw wrote: ↑18 Apr 2021, 12:27
Austria and Hungary had their own parliament and government ,they had as common the same head of state . And they had the same minister of foreign affairs and of defense : Berchtold and Conrad were not minister of foreign affairs of AH and commander of the army of AH, but minister of foreign affairs of Austria and Hungary and chief of staff of the Austrian and Hungarian army .
Berchtold could decide nothing against the will of Tisza. The same for Conrad . The foreign policy of AH was decided by Stürghk and Tisza, not by Berchtold.
I wasn't talking about them, besides, the foreign policy making of the A-H Empire was quite more complicated. I'd love to go deeper into the topic, if you are ready.
(Btw Croatia also had its own Sabor ~ Parliament.)
ljadw wrote: ↑18 Apr 2021, 12:27
The fact that it took a month after Sarajevo to declare war on Serbia is caused by the opposition of Tisza :as long as Tisza said : no, there could be no declaration of war .
István Tisza was a minor player in this match. See above, we can talk about it, but not in this manner.
ljadw wrote: ↑18 Apr 2021, 12:27
That the Romanians quarreled among each other does not mean that they did not want Transylvania :
We are talking about millions of people, thousands of them with dual or mixed identities. Back then, many Romanians in the A-H Empire felt that they will do worse if they'd join an impoverished, powerless buffer state in the Balkans, instead of being part of a big and prosperous market, network and society in the A-H Empire.
ljadw wrote: ↑18 Apr 2021, 12:27
And, it was the presence of Romania an Russia that was keeping AH together :without Russia, Romania would not be such a danger ,and Hungary would leave .
Hungary could not leave, only Magyarország; and that country's borders would not be respected by its neighbours or about a third of its inhabitants; so that would be the Balkan Wars in Carpathian Basin edition.
Besides, Romania was no strategic threat to the A-H Empire.
ljadw wrote: ↑18 Apr 2021, 12:27
That between 1910 and 1914 relations improved between moderates from both sides,is something meaningless : it does say nothing about the power of these moderates .Hungary followed a policy of magyarisation , When Romania took Transylvania in 1918, it persecuted the Hungarians .
Franz Ferdinand wanted to change AH from a federalism with two to a federalism with three, because he was convinced that the Czechs needed more freedom and power. Tisza objected because in a federalism with three Hungary would have less influence .
Not only Tisza objected, the Sudeten Germans and the inhabitants of ''Austria '' were also opposing this idea,because they also would have less power .
I agree. This is kind of obvious, I wrote it myself on this very forum a couple of times.
ljadw wrote: ↑18 Apr 2021, 12:27
Besides, it is very unlikely that, if FF became emperor and king, his plans would become reality : Stürghk and Tisza would say no .
See above; we can talk about this, but not in this manner. Franz Ferdinand was 50 years old when he was assassinated, and would be 52 when Franz Joseph died. How many years did he have, given his compromised health? Maybe 10, maybe 20, and it is not clear that his passive-agressive internal politics would not shift the Empire to a way where parts of the Hungarian elite would not seek another Compromise.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."