prison or liberator
prison or liberator
I'm a firm believer that Austria-Hungary's reputation during World War One (ethnically torn and militarily incompotent) is false, and was just wanting to start a discussion on ethnic divisions.
AH is generally considered a "Prison of Nations" -Hew Strachen, but does anyone agree with me that they were more of a liberator of nations
AH is generally considered a "Prison of Nations" -Hew Strachen, but does anyone agree with me that they were more of a liberator of nations
- Chris Dale
- Host - German Colonies
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: 21 Apr 2004, 15:48
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Their entire post war plan for the east was independence for nations formally under Russian control. The Polish and Ukrainian legions are some examples of how ethnic minorities in Austria-Hungary proved useful to the military. An independent Poland, Ukraine and Lithuania were all on Austria-Hungary's postwar plans. These ideas influenced Germany in their postwar plans for independent Baltic states, and independent Georgia and an independent Finland. Certainly, Germany, and moreso Austria-Hungary, would have created more independent states in the case of victory than Russia, and certainly would have treated Eastern Europe with more self destination than Britain and France treated the middle east.
- Chris Dale
- Host - German Colonies
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: 21 Apr 2004, 15:48
- Location: UK
- Contact:
OK, I see your point, but I notice they only wanted to "liberate" nations under Russian control not liberate their own nations. Within their own emapier they only granted nations degrees of autonomy when forced to. And surely these new states such as Finland, Georgia etc were just to weaken Russia and create a buffer zone in case of future wars. I don't know but I would guess that Russia intended to liberate nations that were part of the AH empire too? Also I wonder how independant these new nations would have been? Admittedly probably more independant than parts of the Ottoman Empire when Britain and France took over, but surely they would still have been merely satellite states under German and AH domination?
I like a good debate....
Cheers
Chris
I like a good debate....
Cheers
Chris
For many of the elites emerging out of the non-German or non-Hungarian ethnic groups during the nineteenth century, Austria-Hungary was an entity to be reformed, not destroyed. They realised that central Europe, if it did not have an Austria-Hungary, would have to invent one, as an economic entity, but more importantly as a defence against the expansionist aspirations of a German Reich or Russian Empire. To that end, the nationalist struggle within AH was for many politicians the goal of achieving, for all nationalities, the autonomy enjoyed by Hungary - the Hungarian nationalist position being that they merely shared a Monarch, a common defence, and a customs union with the other Habsburg territories. Ideals of this type of 'federation' really were only subverted within core national elites during WWI when a) it became obvious Germany was becoming the predominant partner within the alliance with AH, so even if the Central Powers were victorious, Berlin could not be trusted to permit her southern ally to decentralise from 'German' control from Vienna, and b) the Russian Empire fragmented into chaos after 1917, and c) the western allies were willing to support the emergence of central european democracies, and guarantee their postwar borders. Kaiser Karl recognised this, but unfortunately the events of military and economic collapse overtook his attempts to reinvigorate, through a looser federation, the benefits of a central-european polity sharing a Habsburg monarch.
Well, all of the Dual-monarchy's ethnithities would have had representation if their so called allies in the rogue state of Serbia didn't kill the leader that was to bring it to them two years before he was to take the throne. Imagine the lives that could have been saved had Franz Ferdinand taken the throne, no world wars (imagine how many Einsteins, Freuds, Mozarts, Wagners, Goethes, Voltairs, Van Goghs, Poes ... died in the world wars never to discover their potential), no communist superpowers, no holocaust, no divided Middle East, no biligerant Japan... Too bad
- Chris Dale
- Host - German Colonies
- Posts: 1955
- Joined: 21 Apr 2004, 15:48
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Re: prison or liberator
I think by introducing Franz Ferdinand, you're shifting the debate slightly. In answer to your first quotede question, no, they were not a liberator of nations. They may possibly have become a liberator under Franz Ferdinand or under Karl if either had been given a chance to reign properly. But as it stands, no I don't think it can be said that they "were a liberator of nations".cj wrote:anyone agree with me that they were more of a liberator of nations
Also the idea that FF or Karl wanted to liberate these nations, is slightly distorted. I think they realised that they had to give a certain amount of autonomy, not that they wanted to. In a similar way Britian realised it had to give Ireland autonomy after the First World War. It would be false to say that the pre-war British government wanted to give Ireland autonomy.
Let's also not forget the other nations under the AH empire, particularly the Italians in their corner of the empire. There were no plans to "liberate" them, or allow them to join Italy.
As for What if FF wasn't assasinated, that probably belongs in the What if section of this forum. Who knows the AH empire might have imploded under another pressure. Perhaps a war would have broken out first amongst the western powers. There were many pressures in Europe that led to war, FF's assasination was only the spark that set them off.
Cheers
Chris