Just how strong was republican sentiment in Austria-Hungary before 1914?

Discussions on all aspects of Austria-Hungary. Hosted by Glenn Jewison.
Futurist
Member
Posts: 2117
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Just how strong was republican sentiment in Austria-Hungary before 1914?

Post by Futurist » 21 Jun 2020 07:55

The Yugoslav idea was not popular among Croats and Slovenes back in 1914?

Peter89
Member
Posts: 397
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: Just how strong was republican sentiment in Austria-Hungary before 1914?

Post by Peter89 » 22 Jun 2020 17:13

Futurist wrote:
21 Jun 2020 07:55
The Yugoslav idea was not popular among Croats and Slovenes back in 1914?
It was, because by then the panslavism became the political product that offered them a political home (so to say).

In a few years it turned out to be a bluff, and the consequences were bloody and sad.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2117
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Just how strong was republican sentiment in Austria-Hungary before 1914?

Post by Futurist » 23 Jun 2020 01:01

Peter89 wrote:
22 Jun 2020 17:13
Futurist wrote:
21 Jun 2020 07:55
The Yugoslav idea was not popular among Croats and Slovenes back in 1914?
It was, because by then the panslavism became the political product that offered them a political home (so to say).

In a few years it turned out to be a bluff, and the consequences were bloody and sad.
Did Austria-Hungary fail to offer them a political home?

Peter89
Member
Posts: 397
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: Just how strong was republican sentiment in Austria-Hungary before 1914?

Post by Peter89 » 23 Jun 2020 09:58

Futurist wrote:
23 Jun 2020 01:01
Peter89 wrote:
22 Jun 2020 17:13
Futurist wrote:
21 Jun 2020 07:55
The Yugoslav idea was not popular among Croats and Slovenes back in 1914?
It was, because by then the panslavism became the political product that offered them a political home (so to say).

In a few years it turned out to be a bluff, and the consequences were bloody and sad.
Did Austria-Hungary fail to offer them a political home?
Yes, that is my whole point.

Franz Ferdinand realized this and the fact that Hungarian nationalism was the main antagonist regarding the reform of the Empire.

What is your angle on these matters?

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2117
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Just how strong was republican sentiment in Austria-Hungary before 1914?

Post by Futurist » 24 Jun 2020 20:11

Peter89 wrote:
23 Jun 2020 09:58
Futurist wrote:
23 Jun 2020 01:01
Peter89 wrote:
22 Jun 2020 17:13
Futurist wrote:
21 Jun 2020 07:55
The Yugoslav idea was not popular among Croats and Slovenes back in 1914?
It was, because by then the panslavism became the political product that offered them a political home (so to say).

In a few years it turned out to be a bluff, and the consequences were bloody and sad.
Did Austria-Hungary fail to offer them a political home?
Yes, that is my whole point.

Franz Ferdinand realized this and the fact that Hungarian nationalism was the main antagonist regarding the reform of the Empire.

What is your angle on these matters?
I think that the best hope for Austria-Hungary was for something like this plan to be successfully implemented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... er_Austria

Peter89
Member
Posts: 397
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: Just how strong was republican sentiment in Austria-Hungary before 1914?

Post by Peter89 » 25 Jun 2020 10:30

Futurist wrote:
24 Jun 2020 20:11
Peter89 wrote:
23 Jun 2020 09:58
Futurist wrote:
23 Jun 2020 01:01
Peter89 wrote:
22 Jun 2020 17:13
Futurist wrote:
21 Jun 2020 07:55
The Yugoslav idea was not popular among Croats and Slovenes back in 1914?
It was, because by then the panslavism became the political product that offered them a political home (so to say).

In a few years it turned out to be a bluff, and the consequences were bloody and sad.
Did Austria-Hungary fail to offer them a political home?
Yes, that is my whole point.

Franz Ferdinand realized this and the fact that Hungarian nationalism was the main antagonist regarding the reform of the Empire.

What is your angle on these matters?
I think that the best hope for Austria-Hungary was for something like this plan to be successfully implemented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... er_Austria
Popovici got it right, but his idea was flawed, because he thought that minorities can coexist with a neighbouring nation state of the respective nation.

So territorial (!) concessions/autonomy for the Italian, Serbian, Polish and maybe the Romanian minorities made no sense from the Empire's perspective.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2117
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Just how strong was republican sentiment in Austria-Hungary before 1914?

Post by Futurist » 25 Jun 2020 20:12

Peter89 wrote:
25 Jun 2020 10:30
Futurist wrote:
24 Jun 2020 20:11
Peter89 wrote:
23 Jun 2020 09:58
Futurist wrote:
23 Jun 2020 01:01
Peter89 wrote:
22 Jun 2020 17:13


It was, because by then the panslavism became the political product that offered them a political home (so to say).

In a few years it turned out to be a bluff, and the consequences were bloody and sad.
Did Austria-Hungary fail to offer them a political home?
Yes, that is my whole point.

Franz Ferdinand realized this and the fact that Hungarian nationalism was the main antagonist regarding the reform of the Empire.

What is your angle on these matters?
I think that the best hope for Austria-Hungary was for something like this plan to be successfully implemented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... er_Austria
Popovici got it right, but his idea was flawed, because he thought that minorities can coexist with a neighbouring nation state of the respective nation.

So territorial (!) concessions/autonomy for the Italian, Serbian, Polish and maybe the Romanian minorities made no sense from the Empire's perspective.
Why do you say "maybe" for the Romanians? As for the Poles, they lacked a state of their own in 1914. The Germans, on the other hand, did have a state of their own right next door to Austria-Hungary, but one that didn't actually want them since Austro-Hungarian Germans were Catholics whereas the German Empire was majority-Protestant and didn't want to upset its demographic balance.

Peter89
Member
Posts: 397
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: Just how strong was republican sentiment in Austria-Hungary before 1914?

Post by Peter89 » 25 Jun 2020 21:41

Futurist wrote:
25 Jun 2020 20:12
Peter89 wrote:
25 Jun 2020 10:30
Futurist wrote:
24 Jun 2020 20:11
Peter89 wrote:
23 Jun 2020 09:58
Futurist wrote:
23 Jun 2020 01:01

Did Austria-Hungary fail to offer them a political home?
Yes, that is my whole point.

Franz Ferdinand realized this and the fact that Hungarian nationalism was the main antagonist regarding the reform of the Empire.

What is your angle on these matters?
I think that the best hope for Austria-Hungary was for something like this plan to be successfully implemented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... er_Austria
Popovici got it right, but his idea was flawed, because he thought that minorities can coexist with a neighbouring nation state of the respective nation.

So territorial (!) concessions/autonomy for the Italian, Serbian, Polish and maybe the Romanian minorities made no sense from the Empire's perspective.
Why do you say "maybe" for the Romanians? As for the Poles, they lacked a state of their own in 1914. The Germans, on the other hand, did have a state of their own right next door to Austria-Hungary, but one that didn't actually want them since Austro-Hungarian Germans were Catholics whereas the German Empire was majority-Protestant and didn't want to upset its demographic balance.
The Kingdom of Romania came into being before the Austro-Hungarian Compromise took place in 1867. I think that only those nations had a chance to truly integrate into the Empire that were 100% living inside the Empire. Thus Romanians hardly qualify - but it could have made sense to integrate the rest of the Romanian territories into the Empire (instead of Bosnia).

The German unity did not fail because of religion, it failed because two competing kingdoms were there and the Austrians lost.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2117
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Just how strong was republican sentiment in Austria-Hungary before 1914?

Post by Futurist » 25 Jun 2020 21:48

Peter89 wrote:
25 Jun 2020 21:41
Futurist wrote:
25 Jun 2020 20:12
Peter89 wrote:
25 Jun 2020 10:30
Futurist wrote:
24 Jun 2020 20:11
Peter89 wrote:
23 Jun 2020 09:58


Yes, that is my whole point.

Franz Ferdinand realized this and the fact that Hungarian nationalism was the main antagonist regarding the reform of the Empire.

What is your angle on these matters?
I think that the best hope for Austria-Hungary was for something like this plan to be successfully implemented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... er_Austria
Popovici got it right, but his idea was flawed, because he thought that minorities can coexist with a neighbouring nation state of the respective nation.

So territorial (!) concessions/autonomy for the Italian, Serbian, Polish and maybe the Romanian minorities made no sense from the Empire's perspective.
Why do you say "maybe" for the Romanians? As for the Poles, they lacked a state of their own in 1914. The Germans, on the other hand, did have a state of their own right next door to Austria-Hungary, but one that didn't actually want them since Austro-Hungarian Germans were Catholics whereas the German Empire was majority-Protestant and didn't want to upset its demographic balance.
The Kingdom of Romania came into being before the Austro-Hungarian Compromise took place in 1867. I think that only those nations had a chance to truly integrate into the Empire that were 100% living inside the Empire. Thus Romanians hardly qualify - but it could have made sense to integrate the rest of the Romanian territories into the Empire (instead of Bosnia).
Why not annex both Bosnia and Romania? For what it's worth, if you will search through Ottokar von Czernin's memoirs (though perhaps using the term "Rumania" instead of "Romania"), you'll see that Franz Ferdinand was, in fact, interested in unifying with Romania:

https://archive.org/details/inworldwar00czer

Of course, couldn't Austria-Hungary have also tried unifying with Serbia? If not, then it should have tried making a deal with Serbia to give the Serb-majority parts of Bosnia to it (with a voluntary population exchange) in exchange for Serbia leaving Russia's orbit and rejoining Austria-Hungary's orbit.
The German unity did not fail because of religion, it failed because two competing kingdoms were there and the Austrians lost.
I thought that Bismarck didn't want more Catholics in his German Reich, though?

Peter89
Member
Posts: 397
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: Just how strong was republican sentiment in Austria-Hungary before 1914?

Post by Peter89 » 26 Jun 2020 15:52

Futurist wrote:
25 Jun 2020 21:48
Peter89 wrote:
25 Jun 2020 21:41
Futurist wrote:
25 Jun 2020 20:12
Peter89 wrote:
25 Jun 2020 10:30
Futurist wrote:
24 Jun 2020 20:11

I think that the best hope for Austria-Hungary was for something like this plan to be successfully implemented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... er_Austria
Popovici got it right, but his idea was flawed, because he thought that minorities can coexist with a neighbouring nation state of the respective nation.

So territorial (!) concessions/autonomy for the Italian, Serbian, Polish and maybe the Romanian minorities made no sense from the Empire's perspective.
Why do you say "maybe" for the Romanians? As for the Poles, they lacked a state of their own in 1914. The Germans, on the other hand, did have a state of their own right next door to Austria-Hungary, but one that didn't actually want them since Austro-Hungarian Germans were Catholics whereas the German Empire was majority-Protestant and didn't want to upset its demographic balance.
The Kingdom of Romania came into being before the Austro-Hungarian Compromise took place in 1867. I think that only those nations had a chance to truly integrate into the Empire that were 100% living inside the Empire. Thus Romanians hardly qualify - but it could have made sense to integrate the rest of the Romanian territories into the Empire (instead of Bosnia).
Why not annex both Bosnia and Romania? For what it's worth, if you will search through Ottokar von Czernin's memoirs (though perhaps using the term "Rumania" instead of "Romania"), you'll see that Franz Ferdinand was, in fact, interested in unifying with Romania:

https://archive.org/details/inworldwar00czer

Of course, couldn't Austria-Hungary have also tried unifying with Serbia? If not, then it should have tried making a deal with Serbia to give the Serb-majority parts of Bosnia to it (with a voluntary population exchange) in exchange for Serbia leaving Russia's orbit and rejoining Austria-Hungary's orbit.
The German unity did not fail because of religion, it failed because two competing kingdoms were there and the Austrians lost.
I thought that Bismarck didn't want more Catholics in his German Reich, though?
I think it wouldn't work with more Southern Slavic territories, because they experienced Turkish occupation for far too long. The core of the Empire did not have common roots with them. The Hungarians and the Czech, on the other hand, they were absorbed into the Empire in 1526, so they lived together like forever. The same goes for Slovaks, Slovenes and Croats. These nations used to live together for a long enough time to call the Empire their home.

The Romanians are a maybe, because the key figures in their history have been entering and exiting Transsylvania since the middle ages, seeking refuge from Turkish, Russian and Hungarian oppression, so there was a natural, stable bond between the Romanian-inhabited areas, and if you take a look at the fictive new states created around Paris, Romania is one of the most stable of them. But it is still a maybe, because they were allowed to create their own kingdom, and that meant that they had a home elsewhere. The Swiss model was unlikely to be implemented in newborn states of Eastern Europe.

I think Bismarck didn't care too much about the religion of the Austrians; he simply realized that a Grossdeutsche Lösung meant that the Germans will be governed from Vienna. Had he been too much concerned about the Catholics, he wouldn't want to get Bayern and the Schwäbisch lands.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2117
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Just how strong was republican sentiment in Austria-Hungary before 1914?

Post by Futurist » 26 Jun 2020 20:51

Peter89 wrote:
26 Jun 2020 15:52
Futurist wrote:
25 Jun 2020 21:48
Peter89 wrote:
25 Jun 2020 21:41
Futurist wrote:
25 Jun 2020 20:12
Peter89 wrote:
25 Jun 2020 10:30


Popovici got it right, but his idea was flawed, because he thought that minorities can coexist with a neighbouring nation state of the respective nation.

So territorial (!) concessions/autonomy for the Italian, Serbian, Polish and maybe the Romanian minorities made no sense from the Empire's perspective.
Why do you say "maybe" for the Romanians? As for the Poles, they lacked a state of their own in 1914. The Germans, on the other hand, did have a state of their own right next door to Austria-Hungary, but one that didn't actually want them since Austro-Hungarian Germans were Catholics whereas the German Empire was majority-Protestant and didn't want to upset its demographic balance.
The Kingdom of Romania came into being before the Austro-Hungarian Compromise took place in 1867. I think that only those nations had a chance to truly integrate into the Empire that were 100% living inside the Empire. Thus Romanians hardly qualify - but it could have made sense to integrate the rest of the Romanian territories into the Empire (instead of Bosnia).
Why not annex both Bosnia and Romania? For what it's worth, if you will search through Ottokar von Czernin's memoirs (though perhaps using the term "Rumania" instead of "Romania"), you'll see that Franz Ferdinand was, in fact, interested in unifying with Romania:

https://archive.org/details/inworldwar00czer

Of course, couldn't Austria-Hungary have also tried unifying with Serbia? If not, then it should have tried making a deal with Serbia to give the Serb-majority parts of Bosnia to it (with a voluntary population exchange) in exchange for Serbia leaving Russia's orbit and rejoining Austria-Hungary's orbit.
The German unity did not fail because of religion, it failed because two competing kingdoms were there and the Austrians lost.
I thought that Bismarck didn't want more Catholics in his German Reich, though?
I think it wouldn't work with more Southern Slavic territories, because they experienced Turkish occupation for far too long.
But can't Austria-Hungary "civilize" them? I mean, that's what it aimed to do with Bosnia (it only annexed Bosnia in 1908), did it not?
The core of the Empire did not have common roots with them. The Hungarians and the Czech, on the other hand, they were absorbed into the Empire in 1526, so they lived together like forever. The same goes for Slovaks, Slovenes and Croats. These nations used to live together for a long enough time to call the Empire their home.
Yep.
The Romanians are a maybe, because the key figures in their history have been entering and exiting Transsylvania since the middle ages, seeking refuge from Turkish, Russian and Hungarian oppression, so there was a natural, stable bond between the Romanian-inhabited areas, and if you take a look at the fictive new states created around Paris, Romania is one of the most stable of them. But it is still a maybe, because they were allowed to create their own kingdom, and that meant that they had a home elsewhere. The Swiss model was unlikely to be implemented in newborn states of Eastern Europe.
Transylvania was considered more prosperous and more advanced and industrialized than the Old Kingdom of Romania was in 1914, correct?
I think Bismarck didn't care too much about the religion of the Austrians; he simply realized that a Grossdeutsche Lösung meant that the Germans will be governed from Vienna. Had he been too much concerned about the Catholics, he wouldn't want to get Bayern and the Schwäbisch lands.
I think that Bismarck was OK with Bavaria because their numbers were relatively small. BTW, I was talking about a Greater-German solution where only the German-majority parts of Austria actually got annexed to Germany and not any other Austrian territories.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2117
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Just how strong was republican sentiment in Austria-Hungary before 1914?

Post by Futurist » 26 Jun 2020 23:55

BTW, do you think that the rest of Serbia would have looked much more like Vojvodina had it been under Austro-Hungarian rule for as long as Vojvodina was?

Peter89
Member
Posts: 397
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Hungary

Re: Just how strong was republican sentiment in Austria-Hungary before 1914?

Post by Peter89 » 27 Jun 2020 07:38

Futurist wrote:
26 Jun 2020 20:51
But can't Austria-Hungary "civilize" them? I mean, that's what it aimed to do with Bosnia (it only annexed Bosnia in 1908), did it not?
Only to some degree at best, and it wasn't just about "civilization". Polish people did not feel themselves at home in the Empire either. People started to saw things differently with the rise of nationalism.

Eg. Triest, having been part of the Habsburg dominion since 1382, a prosperous city, the 4th biggest one in the Empire, was populated mainly by Italians. Even though it was clear to any sensible man that if they will be annexed to Italy, the other major competitor port cities of Italy will crush them. And it happened. And they don't seem to mind it. And even now, they are living in a sad mix of fascism and poverty, while anything there that worths a tourist's dime was built by the Austrian rule.
Transylvania was considered more prosperous and more advanced and industrialized than the Old Kingdom of Romania was in 1914, correct?
Yes, and it was true.

I think that Bismarck was OK with Bavaria because their numbers were relatively small. BTW, I was talking about a Greater-German solution where only the German-majority parts of Austria actually got annexed to Germany and not any other Austrian territories.
The Bavarians and the Schwabs were numerous enough, but yes. In my opinion, the Austrian-Germans were forced into this marriage with the Hungarians. Both of their national ambitions have failed, so instead of splitting up the Empire in 1866, they held a marriage ceremony. The Hungarians call the Austrians their brothers-in-law, or "sógor", with sarcasm of course.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2117
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Just how strong was republican sentiment in Austria-Hungary before 1914?

Post by Futurist » 29 Jun 2020 04:04

Peter89 wrote:
27 Jun 2020 07:38
Futurist wrote:
26 Jun 2020 20:51
But can't Austria-Hungary "civilize" them? I mean, that's what it aimed to do with Bosnia (it only annexed Bosnia in 1908), did it not?
Only to some degree at best, and it wasn't just about "civilization". Polish people did not feel themselves at home in the Empire either. People started to saw things differently with the rise of nationalism.
That certainly makes sense. I'm assuming that in spite of them possibly being better off under Austria-Hungary (economically and literacy-wise, if not socially or culturally), the pull of nationalism was too strong for both Vojvodina Serbs and Transylvania Romanians to resist, correct?
Eg. Triest, having been part of the Habsburg dominion since 1382, a prosperous city, the 4th biggest one in the Empire, was populated mainly by Italians. Even though it was clear to any sensible man that if they will be annexed to Italy, the other major competitor port cities of Italy will crush them. And it happened. And they don't seem to mind it. And even now, they are living in a sad mix of fascism and poverty, while anything there that worths a tourist's dime was built by the Austrian rule.
Apparently living in the same country as one's volk is simply that worthwhile. Seriously.
Transylvania was considered more prosperous and more advanced and industrialized than the Old Kingdom of Romania was in 1914, correct?
Yes, and it was true.
That makes sense. Apparently these differences are still visible nowadays:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Maps/comments/ ... ania_2017/

Even nowadays, Transylvania and Bucharest are the most developed regions of Romania. Other than Iasi and Constanta, the rest of Romania actually does unfortunately still appear to be relatively underdeveloped even nowadays. :(
I think that Bismarck was OK with Bavaria because their numbers were relatively small. BTW, I was talking about a Greater-German solution where only the German-majority parts of Austria actually got annexed to Germany and not any other Austrian territories.
The Bavarians and the Schwabs were numerous enough, but yes. In my opinion, the Austrian-Germans were forced into this marriage with the Hungarians. Both of their national ambitions have failed, so instead of splitting up the Empire in 1866, they held a marriage ceremony. The Hungarians call the Austrians their brothers-in-law, or "sógor", with sarcasm of course.
Yes, that makes sense. I suppose that this marriage had an air of logic to it in the sense that it's better to be a part of a strong, large unified country than to be a part of two small, weak, separate independent countries--or so it was thought!

Futurist
Member
Posts: 2117
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Just how strong was republican sentiment in Austria-Hungary before 1914?

Post by Futurist » 29 Jun 2020 19:14

By the way, Peter, do you think that the Serbs in Vojvodina right now enjoy being part of Serbia or would they prefer to return to Hungarian rule?

Return to “Austria-Hungary 1867–1918”