Was Austria-Hungary doomed to fail?

Discussions on all aspects of Austria-Hungary. Hosted by Glenn Jewison.
User avatar
SerbTiger
Member
Posts: 285
Joined: 17 Sep 2002 10:38
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by SerbTiger » 04 Jan 2003 10:55

Austria wanted a war with Serbia well before the assassination. And I don't see how they could "punish" Serbia any quicker since their initial offensives were disasters.

In the long run Serbia indirectly secured the independence of a large number of present East European nations.

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

Post by Tanker » 04 Jan 2003 13:18

Austria didn't want war right after the assassination.They wanted to send k.u.k. policemen to Serbia which search for the killer.Serbia denied and Austria made an ultimatum which Serbia also denied and this was the reason of the war decleration on Serbia.

Bosnia was occupied and later annexed to the monarchy.The Serbs got pissed because the way to the Adria Sea was now much longer.Sure wanted Serbia a "Great Serbia" but their primary target was to get an access to the sea.

In the long run Serbia indirectly secured the independence of a large number of present East European nations.


Yeah,for excample Slovenia,Croatia,Bosnia-Herzegowina,Kosovo,Mazedonia which were "independent" in the years 1945 to 1992! :?Today those countries have their own sovereignty,but this is not the work of Serbia,thats their own!

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

Post by Tanker » 04 Jan 2003 13:18

Austria didn't want war right after the assassination.They wanted to send k.u.k. policemen to Serbia which search for the killer.Serbia denied and Austria made an ultimatum which Serbia also denied and this was the reason of the war decleration on Serbia.

Bosnia was occupied and later annexed to the monarchy.The Serbs got pissed because the way to the Adria Sea was now much longer.Sure wanted Serbia a "Great Serbia" but their primary target was to get an access to the sea.

In the long run Serbia indirectly secured the independence of a large number of present East European nations.


Yeah,for excample Slovenia,Croatia,Bosnia-Herzegowina,Kosovo,Mazedonia which were "independent" in the years 1945 to 1992! :?Today those countries have their own sovereignty,but this is not the work of Serbia,thats their own!

Anthony EJW
Member
Posts: 157
Joined: 31 Aug 2002 22:52
Location: Great Britain

Post by Anthony EJW » 04 Jan 2003 14:20

Tanker wrote:Austria didn't want war right after the assassination.They wanted to send k.u.k. policemen to Serbia which search for the killer.Serbia denied and Austria made an ultimatum which Serbia also denied and this was the reason of the war decleration on Serbia.


The Austrian ultimatum was meant to be deliberately unacceptable to the Serbians. There were ten points, each making infringements on Serbian soverignty- complete acceptance would have made Serbia a virtual puppet state. As it was, teh Serbians did accept most points, and where prepared to go to an International tribunal for an investigation on the murder.

Serbian was far from innocent of that events in 1914, and it was agreed that Serban deserved some punishment, but Austria's ultimatium went far beyond what the international community thought acceptable.

Alexey
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: 02 Jan 2003 19:00
Location: Togliatti, middle Volga, Russia

Post by Alexey » 04 Jan 2003 18:57

Well, Archduke Franz-Ferdinand really could do smth to give new life to the AH, I think.
His plans were to come from dualistic to triangular monarchy, giving more rights to Slavs of the empire.
By the way, Hitler in "Mein Kampf" directly wrote his "racial" point of view, that "AH empire was slowly poisoning by Slavic blood, and it was the hand of God, that Franz-Ferdinand, an enemy of Austrian Germans, was killed by bullets, which he helped to make".
This disaster, which destroyed three empires after the WWI, was mainly German fault, not Austro-Hungarian. Germans were too self-assurant and belived, that they could win two-front war (and, hell, if not Jr. Moltke, they could do it!) so they forgot Bismark`s ideas like "The whole eastern question doesn`t cost a bones of even one Pomeranian grenadier; I never read mail from Constantinople".
In peaceful Europe AH could always have some backup from Germany.
Empires weren`t obsolete, they have chances to evolve.
It is a sad thing, that "The Unity of the three emperors" was broken.

User avatar
Mike K.
Member
Posts: 1086
Joined: 20 Oct 2002 22:33
Location: California

Post by Mike K. » 05 Jan 2003 08:02

Alexey wrote:This disaster, which destroyed three empires after the WWI, was mainly German fault, not Austro-Hungarian. Germans were too self-assurant and belived, that they could win two-front war (and, hell, if not Jr. Moltke, they could do it!) so they forgot Bismark`s ideas like "The whole eastern question doesn`t cost a bones of even one Pomeranian grenadier; I never read mail from Constantinople".


Germany was not the sole responsible party. Austria's belligerence towards Serbia and Russia's notion of Pan-Slavic brotherhood set Europe ablaze. Granted, Germany had promised her unconditional support, but what other option was available? Germany was encircled, and both sides had been saber-rattling for years. When Russia refused to end partial mobilization, Germany's only hope was to knock out France and then turn to Russia. Sitting by while Russia marched into Germany's backyard (Austria-Hungary) would have spelt the end.

Bismarck wasn't interested in anything but keeping the status quo, but his crumbling alliance system contributed to Germany being forced to fight a two front war. Russian sentiment had steadily grown more anti-German as Germany aligned herself with Austria.

Alexey wrote:It is a sad thing, that "The Unity of the three emperors" was broken.


It was doomed to failure. Both Austria and Russia were determined to exert influence in the Balkans, so they didn't get along nicely.

User avatar
SerbTiger
Member
Posts: 285
Joined: 17 Sep 2002 10:38
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by SerbTiger » 07 Jan 2003 13:20

Yeah,for excample Slovenia,Croatia,Bosnia-Herzegowina,Kosovo,Mazedonia which were "independent" in the years 1945 to 1992! :?Today those countries have their own sovereignty,but this is not the work of Serbia,thats their own!

CROATIA AND SLOVENIA CHOSE TO JOIN SERBIA THEY BEGGED THE SERB KING TO FORM A UNION hey what better way to end up on the winning team.
Kosovo is not a state more importantly I MEANT The Czech Republic and Slovakia as the most obvious countries to be freed from Austria.

By the way I think the 2 QUOTES below pretty much give a clear picture of the situation

"The note is being composed so that the possibility of its acceptance is practically excluded." German Ambassador to Vienna, Count Heinrich von Tschirschky, to German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg.

"The most formidable demand ever imposed on one state by another." British Foreign Minister Sir Edward Grey on the Austrian ultimatum.

HS
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 04 Feb 2003 03:38
Location: Sydney,Australia

Post by HS » 11 Feb 2003 01:57

SerbTiger wrote:
Yeah,for excample Slovenia,Croatia,Bosnia-Herzegowina,Kosovo,Mazedonia which were "independent" in the years 1945 to 1992! :?Today those countries have their own sovereignty,but this is not the work of Serbia,thats their own!

CROATIA AND SLOVENIA CHOSE TO JOIN SERBIA THEY BEGGED THE SERB KING TO FORM A UNION hey what better way to end up on the winning team.
Kosovo is not a state more importantly I MEANT The Czech Republic and Slovakia as the most obvious countries to be freed from Austria.

By the way I think the 2 QUOTES below pretty much give a clear picture of the situation

"The note is being composed so that the possibility of its acceptance is practically excluded." German Ambassador to Vienna, Count Heinrich von Tschirschky, to German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg.

"The most formidable demand ever imposed on one state by another." British Foreign Minister Sir Edward Grey on the Austrian ultimatum.


"CROATIA AND SLOVENIA CHOSE TO JOIN SERBIA THEY BEGGED THE SERB KING TO FORM A UNION hey what better way to end up on the winning team."

I'm very dissapointed that there are still people today who are willing to post such outright false propaganda such as this.

SerbTiger,
If you are going to participate in historical/political discussions please do NOT post such clear case of propaganda and bias.
Then again I can't realy blame you since that statement above has been pushed by Serb historical propagandists for last 70 years.

In any case post WW1 situation is best explained excert from following book:
CROATIA: MYTH AND REALITY
by C. Michael McAdams
C. Michael McAdams is a specialist in Croatian studies and Director of the University of San Francisco's Regional Center in the California state capital of Sacramento

MYTH: "THE CROATIANS ASKED TO JOIN YUGOSLAVIA"
Myth: The people of Croatia asked to join Serbia in forming Yugoslavia in 1918.
Reality: The people of Croatia did not ask to join Serbia in 1918. The elected representatives of the Croatian people voted for a "Neutral and Peasant Republic of Croatia" in 1918.

The Yugoslav Committee
The basis of the myth that Croatia willingly joined Serbia is to be found in the complex history of the Yugoslav Committee. The Yugoslav Committee was formed by exiles living outside the Croatian homeland during World War I. The Committee was led by Franjo Supilo and Ante Trumbic and included the famous Croatian sculptor Ivan Mestrovic. Each repudiated the Committee within a few years of the founding of Yugoslavia.
"Yugoslavs" were Serbian, Croatian and Slovenian people who identified themselves with the movement toward a single Yugoslavia or South Slavic state. Exiled Yugoslavs living in North America and Britain were the primary supporters of the Yugoslav Committee. Having established offices in London and Paris as early as 1915, the Yugoslav Committee became an active lobby for the cause of a united South Slav state during the First World war.

The concept of a united South Slavic state had been discussed by Croatian and Slovenian intellectuals since the mid- nineteenth century. However, the "Yugoslav Idea" did not mature from the conceptual to practical state of planning. Few of those promoting such an entity had given any serious consideration to what form the new state should take. Nevertheless, the Yugoslav Committee issued a manifesto calling for the formation of such a South Slavic state on May 12, 1915. The document, like the rhetoric of those who produced it, was vague concerning the form and system of government. It received little official recognition.

At the same time, Serbia, led by Nikola Pasic's pan-Serbian Radical Party, saw the "Yugoslav" concept as a useful tool in the long sought development of a "Greater Serbia". As the War dragged on, the Allies began to think of the concept of Yugoslavia as a blocking force in the Balkans to counter future German expansionism. Although no formal agreement was announced until July 1917, the Yugoslav Committee and the Serbian Government-in-Exile worked hand-in-hand from November 1916 onward.

On July 20, 1917 the Serbian government and the Yugoslav Committee issued the text of an agreement known as the Declaration of Corfu which called for the formation of a multi-national state. The document was deliberately mute as to whether the government would take the form of Western-oriented Croatia or of the Eastern-orientated Serbia. The vast majority of the Serbian, Croatian and Slovenian people had no knowledge of the declaration made by a small group of exiled intellectuals and the Serbian Government-in-Exile. Nonetheless, the signers claimed to speak for all South Slavic peoples and the Declaration of Corfu became the justification claimed by Serbia for the forced unification of Croatians and Slovenes under the Serbian crown.

The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
As the War drew to a close, the Austro-Hungarian Empire began to disintegrate. The Croatian "Sabor" or Parliament met in Zagreb on October 29, 1918 to declare "the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia" to be a free and independent state. The Habsburg Crown recognized the Croatian government on October 31st. The Croatian government in Zagreb was fully formed before the fall of Austria on November 3, Germany on November 11, and Hungary on November 13. The Yugoslav National Council of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs was organized in Zagreb on October 15, 1918. This twenty-eight member Council was self- appointed, not elected. Although its president was a Slovene, the Council was dominated by Svetozar Pribicevic, a Serb. On November 24th this self-appointed group called for a common state with Serbia. This is the body so often cited as having "asked" to join Yugoslavia.
The mythology overlooks another Congress held just blocks away on the very next day. This was the Congress of Stjepan Radic's Croatian Peasant Party attended by almost three thousand elected delegates from every part of Croatia. The Peasant Party was the largest and most popular party in Croatia at that time and would remain so during the period between the Wars. It won absolute majorities in every subsequent election. This Congress assailed the National Council as arbitrary and unconstitutional and unanimously adopted a resolution calling for a "Neutral and Peasant Republic of Croatia". Following this Congress, there were huge demonstrations in the streets of Zagreb supporting independence.

Zagreb's brief jubilation quickly changed to the sober realization that Croatia would again be ruled from a foreign capital as Italian, French and French African forces invaded from the west and Serbian troops invaded from the east.

On December 1, 1918, Serbian Prince Alexander announced the formation of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, with a Serbian King ruling from the Serbian capital of Belgrade. Despite the neutral sounding name, the country was called Yugoslavia by the diplomatic community almost from the beginning. Ironically, at the Paris Peace Conference the Yugoslav delegation openly insisted that it be known as the "Serbian delegation".

The Paris Peace Conference
At the Peace Conference itself, the Croatians submitted a petition to President Wilson calling for an independent Croatia. With over 150,000 signatures and the notation that another 450,000 signatures had been seized by the Serbian Army, the document specifically asked:
That Mr. Wilson and the representatives of the great Powers should recognize the independence of the Croatian people;

That an international Commission should be sent to Croatia to inquire;

That a Constituent Assembly should be formed so that the Croatian people be free to decide their fate;

That the Serbian Army be withdrawn;

That the "Sabor", should be respected as being alone authorized in the making of laws in Croatia; to-day, they are being dictated by Serbia and executed in the most brutal manner by the military.

Although submitted to the Paris Peace Conference on May 4th, 1919, the objections of the Croatian people were noted and then ignored by the United States and other so-called "Great Powers". President Wilson's famed "Fourteen Points" for which America had fought a World War were undergoing a metamorphosis at the Conference. Point X originally called for "...the freest opportunity of autonomous development" for the nations of Austria-Hungary and Point XI stipulated that "relations of the several Balkan states to one another be determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and for international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states".

The American delegation's commentary on the revision of Wilson's famous Fourteen Points noted that:

An internal problem arises out of the refusal of the Croats to accept the domination of the Serbs of the Serbian Kingdom.

In a classic example of diplomatic double-speak the delegation wrote:

The United States is clearly committed to the programme of national unity and independence. It must stipulate, however, for the protection of national minorities...it supports a programming aiming at a Confederation of Southeastern Europe.

Thus, in the eyes of the Allies, in order to protect the Croatian nation, it was necessary to destroy it.

There was no vote of the Croatian people about their future. By decree, Prince Alexander dissolved the Croatian National Council, convened a Parliament composed primarily of members of the Serbian "Skupstina" or Parliament and declared that all laws of the Serbian Constitution of 1903 were in effect throughout the land. Despite the fact that the purpose of the new Yugoslavia was supposed to be the unification of all South Slavs into one state, Serbia, making good on a secret pact with Italy made in 1915, handed over a large part of the land and population of Croatian Dalmatia to Italy, including the strategic cities of Rijeka and Zadar. For the first time in thirteen centuries the ancient Croatian institutions of "Ban" or Viceroy and "Sabor" or Parliament were abolished by the Serbian King. The long process of "Serbianization" had begun.

http://www.asg.physik.uni-erlangen.de/e ... th/p02.htm

User avatar
Balrog
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 17 Feb 2003 15:09
Location: USA, North Carolina/Manchukuo/Dominican Republic

Post by Balrog » 14 Apr 2003 21:24

well said HS.

User avatar
sLOVEne
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 20 Jan 2003 15:36
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Post by sLOVEne » 15 Apr 2003 16:58

SerbTiger wrote:
Yeah,for excample Slovenia,Croatia,Bosnia-Herzegowina,Kosovo,Mazedonia which were "independent" in the years 1945 to 1992! :?Today those countries have their own sovereignty,but this is not the work of Serbia,thats their own!

CROATIA AND SLOVENIA CHOSE TO JOIN SERBIA THEY BEGGED THE SERB KING TO FORM A UNION hey what better way to end up on the winning team.
Kosovo is not a state more importantly I MEANT The Czech Republic and Slovakia as the most obvious countries to be freed from Austria.

By the way I think the 2 QUOTES below pretty much give a clear picture of the situation

"The note is being composed so that the possibility of its acceptance is practically excluded." German Ambassador to Vienna, Count Heinrich von Tschirschky, to German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg.

"The most formidable demand ever imposed on one state by another." British Foreign Minister Sir Edward Grey on the Austrian ultimatum.


HAHAHA :lol: Begged 8O

Ah, Serbian Tigers, what more to say :D

HS, thanks for replying.

James McBride
Member
Posts: 540
Joined: 15 Mar 2003 22:58
Location: Sonoma County, California

Post by James McBride » 16 Apr 2003 03:10

This disaster, which destroyed three empires after the WWI, was mainly German fault, not Austro-Hungarian. Germans were too self-assurant and belived, that they could win two-front war (and, hell, if not Jr. Moltke, they could do it!) so they forgot Bismark`s ideas like "The whole eastern question doesn`t cost a bones of even one Pomeranian grenadier; I never read mail from Constantinople".


I completely disagree. The reason they went to war at that time was because they believed that they were losing ground militarily to the Allies, as Austria-Hungary gradually becoming weaker while the Russians were growing stronger. I will read up on some of this tonight, but I don't know that anyone in the German high command was confident on a quick victory. I know that they were hoping for one, but once the Schlieffen plan had failed, I think the Germans knew they were in trouble.

I will find exact dates and treaties later, but years after Wilhelm II let Germany's alliance with the Russians fall through, he knew he had made a mistake. Unfortunately for him, the Russians were already friends with the France by then. I think in 1911 or 1912, maybe a year later or earlier, Wilhelm tried to get a treaty with the Russians, which would have violated the one Russia already had with France. I think Nicholas would have signed it, if not for some sort of intervention. I don't remember exactly. Regardless of exact facts, Germany was not confident in her ability to win a two-front war. Finally, are you sure it is "eastern question"? I remembered it as "Balkan question"

James

Hoth
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 14 May 2003 18:47
Location: UK

Post by Hoth » 16 May 2003 23:35

Wilhelm II was Germany's biggest mistake. Had Wilhelm I not met his untimely death, Bismarck would have stayed popular, and Germany would not have lost their alliance with Russia. You could even say WW1 started because of Wilhelm II's love of sailing. He was so fascinated by the British navy he wanted one of his own, which was out right provokation of the British. Thats what set the war off. The assassination only triggered it off, Britain and Germany would have gone to war sooner or later.

1872: Germany, Austria, and Russia form "League of Three Emperors" against France.
1882: Triple Alliance of Germany, Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Italy
1887: Secret Reinsurance Treaty reaffirms Russo-German alliance.
1890: William II dismisses Bismarck; German foreign policy shifts towards attaining an overseas empire. William II cancels Russo-German Reinsurance Treaty against Russia's wishes, Austro-Hungarian Empire's position indirectly weakened, Germany faces encirclement
1896: Kruger Telegram from William II praising Boers angers British. Archduke Francis Ferdinand becomes heir to Austro-Hungarian throne; his federalist aims make him target of Greater Serb nationalists seeking to dismantle Habsburg dominions.
1898: Fashoda Crisis between France and Great Britain over French presence in Sudan. Germany begins naval construction programme; start of naval arms race. Attempts to establish Anglo-German alliance fail.

Thats where it all went wrong for Germany. Wilhelm II's love of the navy. Had he not started a naval build up, and destroyed his alliance with Russia, he might have got an alliance with Germany and World War 1 may have happened there and then, albeit a little differently. France would most definatly been destroyed, with the Germans claiming more land in East France and Britain taking back thier medieval European empire, pretty much Normandy, Brittany and the French west coast. Hitler would never have come to power, and Germany would probably have ended up thrashing Russia after their monarchy was overthrown. Who knows, Austria Hungary may well have survived.

GFM Sedge
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 11 Jun 2003 12:01
Location: Austria

Post by GFM Sedge » 18 Jun 2003 12:01

Gwynn Compton wrote:Franz Ferdinand believed in granting greater autonomy to the provinces from my knowledge. Does anyone else know what the Crown Prince planned to do?

Gwynn


he wanted to turn austria in a more usa-like state - several states under the same government - but he was really doomed to fail because after 1867 ausgleich with hungary the hungarians did not want other forces in government.

i think a state such as nowaday modern austria (federal republic) would have had the chance to be one of the most powerful nations in the world - and also there maybe could have been avoided far more things: ww1, ww2, communism, holocaust and so on ....

MihaiC
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: 26 Apr 2003 23:06
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by MihaiC » 27 Jun 2003 21:13

Even if croats, slovacs, slovens and cehs would agree to leave in a more democratic federation with austrians and hungarians, there were serbs and romanians who would rather prefer to join Serbia and Romania and poles who desire to remake Poland with poles from Germany and Russia. Also there would be very hard to convince hungarians to give up of some of their power (and land). After Trianon there were some postcard about Hungary losing 72% of its teritory.

GFM Sedge
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 11 Jun 2003 12:01
Location: Austria

Post by GFM Sedge » 18 Jul 2003 11:01

MihaiC wrote:Even if croats, slovacs, slovens and cehs would agree to leave in a more democratic federation with austrians and hungarians, there were serbs and romanians who would rather prefer to join Serbia and Romania and poles who desire to remake Poland with poles from Germany and Russia. Also there would be very hard to convince hungarians to give up of some of their power (and land). After Trianon there were some postcard about Hungary losing 72% of its teritory.


hmm - it only counts that in early 1917 - when karl I. was emperor, much famous persons of this countries (croats, slovacs, slovens and cehs) had audience - they all promised that they are and will be loyal to austria-hungary and the house habsburg and do not want to split. remember - 1917 - shortly before russia collapsed (russia always was protectionary power to all slavs) - better under habsburg crown - as to have a small own state that is not able to survive!

Return to “Austria-Hungary 1867–1918”