Was Austria-Hungary's fate sealed by failure to join Germany

Discussions on all aspects of Austria-Hungary. Hosted by Glenn Jewison.
Gwynn Compton
Member
Posts: 2840
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Was Austria-Hungary's fate sealed by failure to join Germany

Post by Gwynn Compton » 22 Jan 2003 09:50

Was the failure of Austria joining a greater German union during the 19th century the trigger that lead to it's eventual downfall? Would have Germany been able to keep the Austro-Hungarian Empire intact during the nationalist upheavels of the early 20th Century?

I think that it's fate was sealed by its failure to join a greater German union, and thus be doomed to try and control its failing Empire on its own.

Gwynn

User avatar
Tanker
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: 21 Nov 2002 18:03
Location: Austria

Post by Tanker » 22 Jan 2003 16:14

The only way the kuk monarchy could have been saved was a strong emperor that (defenitely not Karl) leaves Germany in 1917 or 1918.Karl tried to get a seperate peace with the Entente (the Sixtus letters),but was to weak to leave.And goddam Italy wanted South Tirol.....

Karl
Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 02:55
Location: S. E. Asia

Post by Karl » 23 Jan 2003 07:06

...but was to weak to leave.And goddam Italy wanted South Tirol.....

You're the man Tanker, you're the man :lol:

I think that it's fate was sealed by its failure to join a greater German union, and thus be doomed to try and control its failing Empire on its own.

Bismark had a personal aversion to Austria, did he not? He was also snubbed a few times by his Southern cousins which did not help to endear him towards them. I think even if they had wanted to (which they would not because it would have meant playing second fiddle to Prussia), Bismark did not. He wanted all ties cut with an Austria playing any role in ruling Germany. 'There can be only one' 8) ...come 1866 and A-H was set adrift and left to it's own fate.

What might have saved the Habsburg's rule would be to have cut the Italien possesions before 1848, (perish the thought but...) do the same with Hungary and no Balkan excursions. Trim and reform from within.

IMHO.

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 23 Jan 2003 15:23

Karl wrote:

What might have saved the Habsburg's rule would be to have cut the Italien possesions before 1848, (perish the thought but...) do the same with Hungary and no Balkan excursions. Trim and reform from within.


Intersting point. I would give up Dalmatia, Galicia and Bukovina too. The diminished "Austria" would then consist of the Alpine Lands with Istria and Küstenland and Bohemia, Moravia and Austrian Silesia. Germans would have been in this territory some 11 million, the Czechs 6 million, the Slovenes 1 million, all the others (Italians, Croats, etc.) 1 million. The Germans would have been just short of 60% of the total population and the country would probably been more manageable. What do you think?

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 12:15
Location: UK

Post by Tim Smith » 23 Jan 2003 18:02

I think Bismarck was wise to exclude the Austro-Hungarian Empire from the German union. Incorporating it would just bring all the volatile, feuding minorities within the German Empire, and all the associated problems that they cause.

Instead of a stronger German Empire, what Europe would have got would be a huge, sprawling, inefficient 'German-Austro-Hungarian Empire', weakened by incessant internal political strife. This would weaken Germany proper rather than strengthen it. It would be like the Holy Roman Empire, but even worse!

Gwynn Compton
Member
Posts: 2840
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Gwynn Compton » 24 Jan 2003 10:01

Had Austria found the will to trim it's "unneeded" possesions such as those suggested here,
Intersting point. I would give up Dalmatia, Galicia and Bukovina too. The diminished "Austria" would then consist of the Alpine Lands with Istria and Küstenland and Bohemia, Moravia and Austrian Silesia. Germans would have been in this territory some 11 million, the Czechs 6 million, the Slovenes 1 million, all the others (Italians, Croats, etc.) 1 million. The Germans would have been just short of 60% of the total population and the country would probably been more manageable.

And been willing to play second fiddle to Prussia in a German Union, I believe it would have survived. However, for it to hold on to its vast Balkan terrorties, as has been stated, may have well doomed the entire German union to fall apart.

However, given that the Austro-Hungarian Empire wasn't about to give up possessions, or to play second fiddle to Prussia, they effectively signed their own death warrant.

Gwynn

User avatar
johnny_bi
Member
Posts: 228
Joined: 10 Sep 2002 07:24
Location: Romania

Post by johnny_bi » 27 Jan 2003 10:31

Why you always forget about the Romanians ???? 8O They were few millions around there .... :roll:


BI

Gwynn Compton
Member
Posts: 2840
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Gwynn Compton » 28 Jan 2003 10:09

Heh, and I guess they'd have to give up their Romanian territories as well :)

Given the fact that the Austrian-Hungarian relied so heavily on the support of it's German citizens, the future of Austria at least, would have been safer with the new German union. For, at the end of the Great War, the German's in Austria claimed that they would now decide Austria's future, and that that future would be with Germany. However, this sentiment obviously did not carry high enough in the ladders of power, given that Prince Metternich himself saw Austria as the leader of the new German Union created in 1815 by the Congress of Vienna. Metternich's dislike of Prussia's growing power, as well as Prussia's attempts to be the leading German state, I feel, severely hampered any hope of Austria breaking from it's Empire, and joining a German union.

Hungary would have been a problem though. Hungary was technically a seperate kingdom, though clearly it was dominated by the power of the Habsburgs, I doubt they would have gone along with this plan, and would have caused Austria, and in turn Germany, trouble.

Gwynn

User avatar
johnny_bi
Member
Posts: 228
Joined: 10 Sep 2002 07:24
Location: Romania

Post by johnny_bi » 29 Jan 2003 07:37

I think too that the major problem of Austria-Hungary Empire was the high percent of non german population ... I think that it is enough to look to the title "Austria-Hungary Empire" ... Both , Austria and Hungary had some large minorities that were willing to break the empire. The XIX century was the century of the nations ... Prusia reunited Germans ... The only "Germans" left for Austria-Hungary Empire were the minorities other than German... While the feelings of the Germans was to be reunited, Prusia was agrowing power which achieved the reunification of the Germans faster than the A-H Empire...
While the Germans in Prusia felt that they had to stay together ... the minorities (which represented a high percent of the population) felt something else ... IMO, the A-H was too artificial for the beginning of the XX century...


BI

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 30 Jan 2003 15:25

johnny_bi asked:

Why you always forget about the Romanians ????


And Gwynn Compton answered:

Heh, and I guess they'd have to give up their Romanian territories as well


I did not talk about the Romanians because most of them lived in Hungary. And I was thinking just on a diminished Austria which of course would have had no Hungarian territories except perhaps its western fringe, the Burgenland, more or less as it happens today. The Romanians in Austria were just a small minority, overwhelming living in the Bukovina where they were more or less a quarter of the total population. And I hve stated the Bukovina would have been ceased by the diminished Austria.

User avatar
johnny_bi
Member
Posts: 228
Joined: 10 Sep 2002 07:24
Location: Romania

Post by johnny_bi » 03 Feb 2003 08:03

Variato , I have to inform you that in Northern Bukovina (the Bukovina you are talking about) the Romanians were a majority, not a minotity... This region was a part of the old Moldavia Kingdom (a romanian principate)... That Bukovina is just a part of the full Bukovina... The Southern Bukovina is a part of Romania ... as was the whole Bukovina some time ago. Even today (the Romanians were deported by the Soviets) they are in a large number in Northern Bukovina... (they were a minority within Austria but not in Bukovina).

BI

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 04 Feb 2003 22:06

Hi johnny_bi

I wrote:

The Romanians in Austria were just a small minority, overwhelming living in the Bukovina where they were more or less a quarter of the total population.


I should have stated one third instead. The ethnic division of Bukovina in 1910 was for a total of some 800000 inhabitants:

Ukrainians: 38.88%
Romanians: 34.38%
Germans: 21.24%
Poles: 4.55%
Hungarians: 1.31%
Slovakians: 0.08%
Slovenians: 0.02%
Italians: 0.02%

Plus some Serbs, Croatians, Turks, Armenians and Roma.

The Jews were mostly considered Germans. On the whole 12.86% of the inhabitants of Bukovina were returned as Jews by their religion.

Source:

http://www.deutsche-schutzgebiete.de/default.htm

As you can see no people had the majority in Bukovina. The Ukrainians were nevertheless the plurality.

User avatar
johnny_bi
Member
Posts: 228
Joined: 10 Sep 2002 07:24
Location: Romania

Post by johnny_bi » 05 Feb 2003 07:37

Hi Variato ...


You're right , my mistake ...
I have an other source ... http://moldova.go.ro/fd/populatiefd.htm#bucovina

unfortunatelly it is in Romanian ... I try to translate it :

" Bukovina was annexed in 1775 by the Habsburgs. Until 1785 Bukovina had been under military occupation and then united to Galitia. In 1849 it became a ducat under the direct leadership of the emperor from Vienna. The forced denationalisation politics practiced by the Habsburgs was focused on church and school, where the use of the Romanian language was prohibited and were facilitated large immigrations of Ukraineans , Germans, Rutens and Slovaks . Finally, a decrease of the Romanian population appeared together with an increase of the Ukrainean population. In 1848 the population of Bukovina was 377,571 , of which 209,293 Romanians and 108,907 Ukraineans. In 1900 however out of 730,195, 229,018 were Romanians and 297,798 were Ukraineans... The rest of the population was represented by Germans.Polish, Armenians, Rutens, etc. "

And me , I was thinking that the Soviets were the first to do such things in Bukovina ... 8O

BI

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 05 Feb 2003 21:36

johnny_bi wrote:

...unfortunatelly it is in Romanian....


Well I can understand the basics of the whole text... :) After all it is a romance language like Portuguese! Anyway thanks for the translation.

BTW may name is viriato and not variato. 8)

alsaco
Member
Posts: 353
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 15:50
Location: France, Paris

Post by alsaco » 06 Feb 2003 10:03

Speaking of Austria and forgetting Bavaria may initiate a misjudgement.

Austria had to turn to the South-East not only because she could not stay in Italy, but also because the Confederation for South Germany aborted.

But facts are facts and the KùK with only Austrian germans, plus the Banat and Siebengebirge could not march the nationalistic drive in the Balkans

Return to “Austria-Hungary 1867–1918”