If Franz Ferdinand could have lived to prevent the need for the Austria to launch a war of retribution against the Serbians in 1914 while, after his coronation, being able to enact his plan of putting the Hungarians in their place, who I've argued time and time again to be the cause of both the Austro-Hungarian Empire's prewar decline and a contributing factor the rise of ethnic tensions throughout the Habsburg Monarchy, and brought about a United States of Austria, there could have been a chance that the Habsburg Monarchy could have survived.
The special status of Hungary also evoked the envy of peoples like the Czechs. Furthermore, the Hungarians' practice of Margaryizing their Croatian, Vlach, and other such subjects proved a detriment to the Austrian half of the state's wishes to decrease ethnic tensions all-around. Hungary also served to weaken the Habsburgs' ability to further strengthen their military prior to WW1 which was one such reason for the poor state and funding of their armed forces compared to the states' rivals at the time.
>muh hungarians
brainlet take
The hungarians only acted the way they did because that was the optimal game theory strategy for them in the shitty prisoner's dilemma that was the dual monarchy. The were never going to support the strengthening of the common army as long as the memory of 1848 was still alive and with good reason. Of course it screwed them too in the end, but such is the nature of a prisoner's dilemma. The real cultprit for the fall of the empire was the moron Franz Joseph for setting up such a system in the first place and starting a world war his country was entirely unprepared for and could have easily avoided.
've read books upon books which have encompassed such topics such as "A New History of the Habsburg Empire," "A Mad Catastrophe," and several others which have all vindicated my hypothesis.
Please suggest books of your own which contradict my hypothesis if you wish to engage in an actual debate.
I do agree, however, that the Hungarians used the Austro-Hungarian Compromise as a means of furthering their power over the dual monarchy and their control over traditionally Hungarian provinces. However, I find these Hungarian ambitions as detrimental to the stability of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a whole
2 years ago
Anonymous
Hungarian ambitions seemed to contrast with Austrian ones when it comes down to the the Hungarians wishing to enrich themselves rather than the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a whole as the Austrians would have preferred.
The revolutions of 1848 unveiled the Hungarian ambition for the rebirth of an independent state to the detriment of the Austro-Hungarian union. The Austrian were saved by Russian troops during that revolt, though, which is why avoiding diplomatic isolation should have been of utmost importance to the Austrians.
If the Holy Alliance could have sustained itself, perhaps through further rapprochement between the Austrians and the Russians, that perhaps could have served as another pathway for continued peace and the continued survival of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a whole.
>wins on all fronts >Russia disintegrated, Romania humiliated, Serbia obliterated, Italy crumbling >gets fricked because the krautists bungled the spring offensive and brought the mutts into the war
Yes, actually, it does
>>wins on all fronts
Starts losing to the Russians at the start of the war and had to get a German commander to straighten their shit up. Couldn't push through the Serb peasant undersupplied army for the first year of the war. Army constantly disorientated and confused because of 6 language barriers. >Russia disintegrated, Romania humiliated, Serbia obliterated, Italy crumbling
Russia disintegrated because of the kraut push, Romania was humiliated because no 3rd world country could survive a 3 way push against the central powers. Serbia held out until the Germans sent fricking Von Mackensen and convinced Bulgaria to ape out and stab Serbia in the back. Italy was not pushed nor did it itself push during the entire war, the only thing that crumbled were the thousands of soldiers fighting in the alps only for nothing to happen. >gets fricked because the krautists bungled the spring offensive and brought the mutts into the war
Gets fricked because they were so useless they had to rely on the Germans to do everything for them. They did nothing but waste men in the fires of war and torture the Serbs. >Yes, actually, it does
No, actually, it doesn't.
>Italy was not pushed nor did it itself push during the entire war, the only thing that crumbled were the thousands of soldiers fighting in the alps only for nothing to happen.
After Caporetto the CP occupied half of Veneto
There military was not able to work together bc they all spoke different languages. Sometimes the creation divisions would move without being helped by the hungaria part and then the Austria part was still at base. Nothing functioned. If they were smart they would have had a united States of Austria. Where each ethnic group had its own state. Ran itself. But then there was a 2nd language that was used at the federal level. That would work. Then maybe over time they would become culturally the same. Also, russia but fricked them.
Every European kingdom before modern state formation was ethnically diverse, and they did just fine. Hell, every realm of any size in history was. The problem was combining that diversity with the new, 19th-century notion of nationalism, and the idea that any region with its own language must have its own state.
>holy roman empire >kingdom of england >kingdom of france >kingdom of spain >kingdom of serbia >kingdom of sweden >kingdom of scotland >kingdom of bohemia >kingdom of hungary >kingdom of navarre >papal states
Well let's just say it was not fine. Every mutliethnic country had problems. The road to being nation states was long and dirty. The Germans basically had 30 different ethnicities under their kingkm run by the Prussians. And they did not consider themselves german in any way. Only after ww2 and the cold war did Germany become the Germany we think of it as today. For most of human history that is not how it worked out.
Ditto for many other countries. Hell just look at the United Kingdom. The Scots and Welsh and Irish do bot consider themselves english in any way. Yet they are united under 1 monarch for most of history. Even today the rising are now indepdent. The Scots want out but the English pay for everything so they stay in. The Welsh have almost no fight left so are basically conquered.
Building a nation state is long and dirty. And after hundreds of years do places became a nation state. Some still havnt figured it out.
Could it have ever survived?
If Franz Ferdinand could have lived to prevent the need for the Austria to launch a war of retribution against the Serbians in 1914 while, after his coronation, being able to enact his plan of putting the Hungarians in their place, who I've argued time and time again to be the cause of both the Austro-Hungarian Empire's prewar decline and a contributing factor the rise of ethnic tensions throughout the Habsburg Monarchy, and brought about a United States of Austria, there could have been a chance that the Habsburg Monarchy could have survived.
The special status of Hungary also evoked the envy of peoples like the Czechs. Furthermore, the Hungarians' practice of Margaryizing their Croatian, Vlach, and other such subjects proved a detriment to the Austrian half of the state's wishes to decrease ethnic tensions all-around. Hungary also served to weaken the Habsburgs' ability to further strengthen their military prior to WW1 which was one such reason for the poor state and funding of their armed forces compared to the states' rivals at the time.
>muh hungarians
brainlet take
The hungarians only acted the way they did because that was the optimal game theory strategy for them in the shitty prisoner's dilemma that was the dual monarchy. The were never going to support the strengthening of the common army as long as the memory of 1848 was still alive and with good reason. Of course it screwed them too in the end, but such is the nature of a prisoner's dilemma. The real cultprit for the fall of the empire was the moron Franz Joseph for setting up such a system in the first place and starting a world war his country was entirely unprepared for and could have easily avoided.
've read books upon books which have encompassed such topics such as "A New History of the Habsburg Empire," "A Mad Catastrophe," and several others which have all vindicated my hypothesis.
Please suggest books of your own which contradict my hypothesis if you wish to engage in an actual debate.
I do agree, however, that the Hungarians used the Austro-Hungarian Compromise as a means of furthering their power over the dual monarchy and their control over traditionally Hungarian provinces. However, I find these Hungarian ambitions as detrimental to the stability of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a whole
Hungarian ambitions seemed to contrast with Austrian ones when it comes down to the the Hungarians wishing to enrich themselves rather than the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a whole as the Austrians would have preferred.
The revolutions of 1848 unveiled the Hungarian ambition for the rebirth of an independent state to the detriment of the Austro-Hungarian union. The Austrian were saved by Russian troops during that revolt, though, which is why avoiding diplomatic isolation should have been of utmost importance to the Austrians.
If the Holy Alliance could have sustained itself, perhaps through further rapprochement between the Austrians and the Russians, that perhaps could have served as another pathway for continued peace and the continued survival of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a whole.
The Roman Empire survived much longer despite how multiethnic it was, why wouldn't Austria-Hungary be able to survive?
>wins on all fronts
>Russia disintegrated, Romania humiliated, Serbia obliterated, Italy crumbling
>gets fricked because the krautists bungled the spring offensive and brought the mutts into the war
Yes, actually, it does
>>wins on all fronts
Starts losing to the Russians at the start of the war and had to get a German commander to straighten their shit up. Couldn't push through the Serb peasant undersupplied army for the first year of the war. Army constantly disorientated and confused because of 6 language barriers.
>Russia disintegrated, Romania humiliated, Serbia obliterated, Italy crumbling
Russia disintegrated because of the kraut push, Romania was humiliated because no 3rd world country could survive a 3 way push against the central powers. Serbia held out until the Germans sent fricking Von Mackensen and convinced Bulgaria to ape out and stab Serbia in the back. Italy was not pushed nor did it itself push during the entire war, the only thing that crumbled were the thousands of soldiers fighting in the alps only for nothing to happen.
>gets fricked because the krautists bungled the spring offensive and brought the mutts into the war
Gets fricked because they were so useless they had to rely on the Germans to do everything for them. They did nothing but waste men in the fires of war and torture the Serbs.
>Yes, actually, it does
No, actually, it doesn't.
>Italy was not pushed nor did it itself push during the entire war, the only thing that crumbled were the thousands of soldiers fighting in the alps only for nothing to happen.
After Caporetto the CP occupied half of Veneto
>no 3rd world country
why are you applying cold war lingo to the first world war
There military was not able to work together bc they all spoke different languages. Sometimes the creation divisions would move without being helped by the hungaria part and then the Austria part was still at base. Nothing functioned. If they were smart they would have had a united States of Austria. Where each ethnic group had its own state. Ran itself. But then there was a 2nd language that was used at the federal level. That would work. Then maybe over time they would become culturally the same. Also, russia but fricked them.
It was so fricking kino for the maps alone.
Every European kingdom before modern state formation was ethnically diverse, and they did just fine. Hell, every realm of any size in history was. The problem was combining that diversity with the new, 19th-century notion of nationalism, and the idea that any region with its own language must have its own state.
>provides no examples
>provides examples, btfo himself
Can you go back to historum or whatever brain dead history website you came from?
>holy roman empire
>kingdom of england
>kingdom of france
>kingdom of spain
>kingdom of serbia
>kingdom of sweden
>kingdom of scotland
>kingdom of bohemia
>kingdom of hungary
>kingdom of navarre
>papal states
Well let's just say it was not fine. Every mutliethnic country had problems. The road to being nation states was long and dirty. The Germans basically had 30 different ethnicities under their kingkm run by the Prussians. And they did not consider themselves german in any way. Only after ww2 and the cold war did Germany become the Germany we think of it as today. For most of human history that is not how it worked out.
Ditto for many other countries. Hell just look at the United Kingdom. The Scots and Welsh and Irish do bot consider themselves english in any way. Yet they are united under 1 monarch for most of history. Even today the rising are now indepdent. The Scots want out but the English pay for everything so they stay in. The Welsh have almost no fight left so are basically conquered.
Building a nation state is long and dirty. And after hundreds of years do places became a nation state. Some still havnt figured it out.
Conrad von Hotzendorf couldn't lead his way out of a wet paper bag.