Why wasnt diversity their strength ?

Why wasn’t diversity their strength ?

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was, AH was a surprisingly resilient country. It survived Napoleon, revolutions of 1848, a war with Prussia. Before the WW1 people though it would collapse from a small outside push, but it didn't happened until the Germans lost the war.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/F35HwXH.png

      Why wasn’t diversity their strength ?

      >subsists solely on the quasi enslavement of inferiors to superiors in a caste system

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >caste system
        >quasi-enslavement
        You know literally nothing about the history of that region. Even the most discriminated against minorities in places like Hungary were able to produce works media and become politicians. In the Austrian part, more than half the politicians in their version of parliament were Slavs. Poles, Ruthenians, Slovenes, Croats, and Czechs all had a say in government, even if it wasn’t completely proportional to the percentage of each population. But that’s hardly a caste system. Then all of these non-German people still made significant contributions Austrian life. It wasn’t some Wehraboo jerk off fest where Germans dominated everything. Many prominent Austria-Germans were also of mixed ethnic background.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What are you even talking about, moron. Topic is Austria Hungary, not India

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Got any examples of this? Surely you gotta have at least one.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The way slavs were treated and forbidden from positions of power.

          What are you even talking about, moron. Topic is Austria Hungary, not India

          see above.

          >caste system
          >quasi-enslavement
          You know literally nothing about the history of that region. Even the most discriminated against minorities in places like Hungary were able to produce works media and become politicians. In the Austrian part, more than half the politicians in their version of parliament were Slavs. Poles, Ruthenians, Slovenes, Croats, and Czechs all had a say in government, even if it wasn’t completely proportional to the percentage of each population. But that’s hardly a caste system. Then all of these non-German people still made significant contributions Austrian life. It wasn’t some Wehraboo jerk off fest where Germans dominated everything. Many prominent Austria-Germans were also of mixed ethnic background.

          it was German supremacist.
          >but browns had it worse
          IQ issue

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it was German supremacist
            Only very briefly between the 1848 revolution and the Austro-Prussian war of 1866. Bach's absolutism was short lived.
            >slavs were treated and forbidden from positions of power.
            Complete nonsense.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >quasi enslavement
        Oh please.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Non-sequitur.
      Just because AH was a resilient country, doesn't mean it was resilient because of their ethno-linguistic diversity

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >surprisingly resilient
      That ought to tell you something. It survived those conflicts despite being so ethnically diverse, not because of it. The disastrous wars you describe also happened when most nationalisms, outside of Magyar nationalism, was still being developed and they just wanted more autonomy within the Habsburg structure. However, after it developed more it became easier for the nationalities to demand full separation. Now, I think it would’ve held together without WW1 or with a WW1 victory, but its diversity wasn’t a strength in terms of not being dissolved and in terms of military organization. It was a cultural strength however, going into the 19th century.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Bailed out by the Russians in 1849. I’m sure if Russia knew Austria would be their main rival in WWI they would have let Hungary finish the job

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was actually doing really well until a bunch of autistic Serbs fricked it up because they were genuinely afraid that growing prosperity and political concessions to major ethnic groups in AH would cause their nationalist movements to disappear. They didn't have a diversity problem, they had a Serb problem.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      They actually had a Hungarian problem, the main reason AH didn't modernize into the meme Danubian Federation is the Hungarian nobility being afraid of loosing its privileges over the Slavs.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It wasn’t just the Hungarians though. A third kingdom could have been created with the Czechs in terms similar to what the Hungarians got, but Austro-German liberals forced the government to back down from it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Czech demands were insane, Germans did not want to learn Czech to be part of the local bureaucracy and they had every right not to.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The language question in Bohemia may have been impossible to solve, but many German liberals also didn’t want to give up other unique privileges outside of language. Iirc, it was primarily the loss of other privileges that Germans didn’t want to give up that killed the first proposals for this in 1868.
            But you make a good point. One of the biggest issues with solving the national problems is that the goals of many nationalities evolved from fair representation to outright dominance in their areas depending on which way the winds were going. The Czechs probably represent this attitude best.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody asked them to move into Bosnia lmao, maybe if they worked on industrialising a little faster instead of autistic continental conquest during a notoriously revolutionary period things would have gone differently

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Bosnians were come of the most loyal subjects of the Habsburg empire and absolutely did not want to fall under Serb tyranny.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >bosnians
          who?
          Do you mean the croats, the serbs or the muslims/bosniaks?
          >most loyal
          oh yeah mad loyal for the what, 6 whole years of their annexation? thanks for the laugh anon that's a good one
          >absolutely did not want to fall under Serb tyranny.
          uhm, who didn't want that? Because the reality is that if you put it to a vote a huge plurality would very much have wanted that, and that's one of the reasons why Franz went into Bosnia
          >B-but that video of people welcoming the emperor!
          please.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Bosnians and Croats fought valiantly in WW1. They did not want to be annexed by Italy or Serbia.
            And the Bosnian mob was about to lynch Gavrilo until the cops intervened.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >industrialization
        Fastest growing economy of Europe before WW1.
        Maybe Serbs shouldn't have acted like Black folk and everything would be fine.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          erm
          >citation needed
          >+russia tier rail links
          and we all know what happened there...
          >+100 years too late to the party

          Bosnians and Croats fought valiantly in WW1. They did not want to be annexed by Italy or Serbia.
          And the Bosnian mob was about to lynch Gavrilo until the cops intervened.

          >Bosnians and Croats fought valiantly in WW1
          who? fought what?
          >And the Bosnian mob was about to lynch Gavrilo until the cops intervened.
          again who? The croats the serbs or the bosniak muslims?
          or do you just generally mean the midwits on the street worshipping some random monarch because they were excited to see some richgay at their doorstep?
          You want to hear something equally anecdotal? The Irish public would go nuts for the monarchy every time they did a little tour in Dublin.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            needed
            The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy Revisited (2010) edited by Andras Gero.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >dude don't trust me trust him bro
            also learn 2 source chud

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >them rail links

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s actually a book comprised of a dozen essays examining the economy of Austria-Hungary in the 19th century, written by different experts and professors in this field. All of them have the same points about its economy being the fastest growing in Europe. But go ahead and cite a random chart from AFTER the period we’re talking about, without a source of where that chart is from.
            You’re such a wienery but moronic Black person. You should be stoned to death.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I dont give a shit homosexual
            page numbers
            appendix
            source it properly or dont make moronic statements without contexts or dates or anything based on some literal who revisionism
            you got two images there saying otherwise here's a third
            blow it out your ass dipshit

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If this thread is still up by the time I get home and get that book in my hand, I’m going to make you look like the brainlet you are.
            >three pictures
            One picture is from AFTER you literal mongoloid. The other two only show that it was less developed, which eastern Central Europe has always been but we’re talking about RATE OF GROWTH. You’re so fricking stupid.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I dont give a shit homosexual
            page numbers
            appendix
            source it properly or dont make moronic statements without contexts or dates or anything based on some literal who revisionism
            you got two images there saying otherwise here's a third
            blow it out your ass dipshit

            And you’re not even citing these pictures appropriate you fricking monkey. You’re just pulling them out of your ass. You’re also a hypocrite.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            it's not from after homosexual everything's dated and those are 3 different indexes one is of growth the second of rail links and the third is of GDP
            >MUH BUH EASTERN EUROPE ALWAYS POOR
            Bohemia was at one point the centre of Europe
            But I get that you morons are so lazy you use any excuse for why the Habsburgs were so bad at industrialisation, defeatist mindset

            NTA
            >complains about sources
            >pulls out sourceless pictures out of his ass
            Nice one, never change. Also, learn what growth is.

            [...]
            And you’re not even citing these pictures appropriate you fricking monkey. You’re just pulling them out of your ass. You’re also a hypocrite.

            learn to
            >reverse image search
            because that's literally what an appendix is and don't just throw a title of some presumably 1000 page book where I have to search for your remarkably specific statement of A-H having the
            >fastest economic growth in Europe before WW1
            when I seriously doubt that to be even remotely true for any time period longer than a 10 years

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >everything's dated and those are 3 different indexes one is of growth the second of rail links and the third is of GDP
            Wow, only one is relevant.
            >when I seriously doubt that to be even remotely true for any time period longer than a 10 years
            I see we are approaching acceptance.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ssooo was it growing the fastest before WW1 in 1694?
            Or from 1916-1918?
            And in either case, how does that change the fact that it was slow to industrialise and never matched up to it's competitors?

            >wars are won only by the power of will
            I see you are moronic.

            idk what the frick you are talking about or why Croats fighting on the Isonzo has anything to do with their 20% population in Bosnia

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it's competitors
            Ah, yes. The mighty industrialized nations of Italy, Ottoman's and Russia.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >1900 to 2005
            >not after
            I’m done talking to you after this post because you’re too stupid to even understand dates
            But regardless, everything you said is wrong and I’m going to provide academic cites as soon as I can.
            >reverse image search
            You didn’t even search the book/essays I referenced. It’s actually 200 pages but I’m sure that’s closer to 1000 for you because you’ve never read a book in your life. Im confident you’ve never read a single book about this region, or Eastern Europe. I mean frick
            >Bohemia was at one point the centre of Europe
            Yeah, UNDER the Habsburg empire it was a huge industrial area. Bohemia was made the industrial center by the Habsburgs. And it was always poorer and less populated than Western Europe. Here’s a book I read about that:
            A History of East Central Europe: A History of East Central Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present by Piotr Stefan Wandycz
            Not that you’re going to ever read anything—you’d need it to be a picture book.
            Inb4 page citation: read chapters one through four

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            **The Price of Freedom: A History of East Central Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            statement
            >austria hungary had the fastest economic growth before WW!
            start of WW1
            >1914
            chart shows economic growth from 1900-2005
            >1914-1900=14
            that's 14 years
            and before that, you really expect me to believe that while Britain France and Germany were experiencing industrial explosive growth, A-H was surpassing them doing what? Cultivating bigger wheat fields?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No one’s arguing Austria-Hungary was more developed or industrialized than Germany or France. No one’s arguing AH surpassed them. I’m telling you that all sources show that Austria-Hungary was definitively on the upswing and growing faster than everyone else. These are two different concepts: overall size vs growth.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >on the upswing
            so was everyone
            >growing faster than everyone else
            [ctitation needed]
            also just overall an irrelevant statement since we were talking about
            >industrialisation
            in the first place

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your first post was about
            >industrializing faster
            Someone pointed out they were the fastest industrializing state in Europe
            >source
            I’ve cited two books. But frick it, I can’t access those books right this second. Here’s what Wikipedia says
            >The gross national product per capita grew roughly 1.76% per year from 1870 to 1913. That level of growth compared very favorably to that of other European countries such as Britain (1%), France (1.06%), and Germany (1.51%).
            Either take that or go read the books I’ve mentioned which say the same things.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Your first post was about industrializing faster
            correct
            >Someone pointed out they were the fastest industrializing state in Europe
            no they didn't, the statement was "fastest growing economy of europe before WW1

            >industrialization
            Fastest growing economy of Europe before WW1.
            Maybe Serbs shouldn't have acted like Black folk and everything would be fine.

            dont gaslight me homosexual
            and they even failed to prove that too
            >wikipedia article with no source
            edit that ourselves yeah?
            >consistent 1.76% throughout a span of 43 years every year
            so informative
            >still nowhere near as industrialised as it's competitors either way you look at it
            >still 100 years late to the party

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            article with no source
            >edit that ourselves yeah?
            The source is The Economic Rise of the Habsburg Empire, 1750-1914 by David F. Good. That’s a third book that you will never read
            I’ve given you three sources on this and you’ve only pissed and shat yourself

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            LMAO WAY TO have a nice day IN THE FOOT
            >However, in a comparison with Germany and Britain, the Austro-Hungarian economy as a whole still lagged considerably, as sustained modernization had begun much later.
            literally the following sentence from the book

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Let’s put those sentences together:
            > >The gross national product per capita grew roughly 1.76% per year from 1870 to 1913. That level of growth compared very favorably to that of other European countries such as Britain (1%), France (1.06%), and Germany (1.51%).
            >> >However, in a comparison with Germany and Britain, the Austro-Hungarian economy as a whole still lagged considerably, as sustained modernization had begun much later.
            So it’s growing faster than them but it’s still not closed the gap?! So that’s exactly what I’ve been saying this whole fricking time, you actual fricking buffoon.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Indeed we finally got around to substantiating your half-baked statement.
            Unfortunately you lost the argument because you failed to prove A-H had sufficiently industrialised.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The argument was over it being the fastest growing economy in Europe. The argument has been completely about growth but I’m talking to a brick wall. You’re so moronic you can’t separate these things. No one ever said that the argument was about it being more industrialized than England and Germany, except you

            >can't provide citation when prompted
            >still rambles on without it
            would you not just wait till you get home, bellend?
            can't wait for this source now

            It’s because you talk like you know literally anything and you don’t know anything. homosexual, you didn’t even know basic shit that happened in WW1

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            erm, nope the original statement is here

            Nobody asked them to move into Bosnia lmao, maybe if they worked on industrialising a little faster instead of autistic continental conquest during a notoriously revolutionary period things would have gone differently

            >maybe if they worked on industrialising a little faster instead of autistic continental conquest during a notoriously revolutionary period things would have gone differently
            and the argument to that was here

            >industrialization
            Fastest growing economy of Europe before WW1.
            Maybe Serbs shouldn't have acted like Black folk and everything would be fine.

            Fastest growing economy of Europe before WW1
            so in the process after FINALLY proving that the economy may have been the fastest growing through a very painful trial and error method of sourcing, with a shitty uninformative source, mind you,
            we have also established that Austria-Hungary was indeed slow to industrialise, through the same source, rendering the argument mute

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >should be industrializing faster
            >Prove they are the fastest growing economy in Europe.
            That defeats your statement right there. Or what? Should they have magically pulled factories out of their ass , like where you pull your information from?
            >Trial and error
            >uninformative
            Trial and error and uninformative my ass. Why don’t you post more unsourced images from literally who knows where. Did they teach you to say “just reverse image search it lol” in university? You’re an uninformed clown.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That defeats your statement right there. Or what?
            It doesn't though? Underdeveloped nations often have a higher economic growth rate than developed ones, that's why they are called developing. It just means that A-H had poor industrial capabilities, the distinction is even made in the source you provided.
            > >The gross national product per capita grew roughly 1.76% per year from 1870 to 1913. That level of growth compared very favorably to that of other European countries such as Britain (1%), France (1.06%), and Germany (1.51%).
            >> >However, in a comparison with Germany and Britain, the Austro-Hungarian economy as a whole still lagged considerably, as sustained modernization had begun much later.
            Furthermore, despite losing the argument I pointed out that your source is shit because it states a growth rate of 1.7 for FOURTY-THREE years. What kind of moron economics is that? Is that an average of fourty three years each year? Was it the highest growing every year? It also gives a single figure for britain france and germany, 1 figure for fourty three years for each country. That is a shit source and I wouldn't proudly be using it if I was you, clearly the info isn't there.
            >Why don’t you post more unsourced images from literally who knows where. Did they teach you to say “just reverse image search it lol” in university?
            I provided an image appendix with it's own data, a google reverse search is two clicks, that takes 2 minutes to verify. You provided the title of a book with god knows how many pages, it would take me hours to read to find your statement. This is why we learn to source properly, stupid c**t.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Coping has begun, first they weren't the fastest growing economy, but now it doesn't matter that they were.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Original argument was about industrialisation, it took you 3 hours to substantiate a statement about growth when prompted, and this proved austria hungary's poor industrialisation within the source you provided, which in itself states
            >higher economic growth than Britain and Germany, but the figure is meaningless as those were already industrialised and A-H wasn't
            Your concession is accepted

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I am not even that anon, you stupid homosexual.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            then you are an even bigger moron for jumping in for the sake of arguing
            >first they weren't the fastest growing economy
            I never even stated this, I asked for a source, and the source provided proved my original statement. Funny right?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, you danced and screeched around when provided with multiple sources. If you thought it might have been true, you would have changed your tone immediately and said that growth doesn't matter,but that only comes later. And your original argument was shit, nobody liked Serbs, they had national ambitions to get all South Slavs speaking Serbo-Croatian into their state and make them Serbs way before muh annexation of Bosnia. They also parted ways with AH a few years before the annexation happened.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ehh yeah false everyone loved the serbs and wanted to be in their state I read it in [book title] it's 800 pages long
            >throws book at your stupid face
            >doesnt provide you with page number or image
            good luck finding it!
            btw lets also go back to the statement in question
            >Fastest growing economy of Europe before WW1.
            still not fully proven, the source provided only lists Britain, France and Germany, countries with low growth rates that were already modernised
            the rest of your ramblings I will not even adress

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the rest of your ramblings I will not even adress
            Of course you won't, because you obviously have no clue about the history of the time or the region. Just random moronic ideas.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I accept your concession
            btw you should really learn to source properly

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Said by the guy that pulls random pics not even addressing topic at hand.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you can reverse image search pics in 2 clicks
            you can't reverse search paraphrased statements in a book, dumb homosexual
            not even a quote was provided, and when it was, not only did it not match the original statement, it disproved the whole point.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your pics were fricking irrelevant and it shows your lack of reading comprehension and knowledge.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >tries to argue against lack of industry by making unverified claim about economic growth
            >calls other arguments irrelevant
            just btfoing yourself at this point

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >claim gets verified by multiple sources
            >only then does the moron say growth is irrelevant
            If you thought growth was irrelevant,you would have said immediately and not after 3 hours of arguing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            so where exactly does it say A-H had the largest growth in Europe?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            where does this say that A-H had the
            >largest economic growth rate in Europe
            (I can only repeat the same question so many times)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Here's multiple sources. Go and read for a change.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            none of them say that
            learn 2 source please

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao, just pathetic.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            indeed, pulling statements out of your ass from books you misinterpreted and repeatedly failing to source them for hours is really just pathetic
            I hope you didn't get a degree out of this

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Keep coping, won't erase the fact that you provided nothing in this thread and got called out multiple times.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >still no citation after hours of defending statement

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Pretending you weren't provided with citations won't make it true.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            source this statement please

            >industrialization
            Fastest growing economy of Europe before WW1.
            Maybe Serbs shouldn't have acted like Black folk and everything would be fine.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Here.

            https://trustmebro.com/ah

            Satisfied?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            NTA
            >complains about sources
            >pulls out sourceless pictures out of his ass
            Nice one, never change. Also, learn what growth is.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you're a giant homosexual bro

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            stay mad c**t

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is no way Galicia was that rich

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >who? fought what?
            The Isonzo front was largely held by Croats led by a Serb general.
            >midwits on the street worshipping some random monarch
            Fact is that they did not want to be annexed by by Italy or Serbia as is proven by the battle records. Some of the Serbs surely did but the Muslims absolutely not.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the isonzo front
            so they fought AGAINST austria hungary damn mad
            >lead by a serb
            yeah no shit there goes that argument
            >Fact is that they did not want to be annexed by by Italy or Serbia as is proven by the battle records. Some of the Serbs surely did but the Muslims absolutely not.
            WHO? butthole
            bosnia is a huge swathe of land and for the past 100 years it has been hovering at 45% serbian 30%+muslim who are by the way a literal imperial relic that owned 90% of the land and were culled in the rest of the Balkans like the bourgoise in France and 20%+ were Croats. "Bosnian" at the time was not an ethnicity.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but you’re so fricking stupid. The Croats were fighting FOR Austria-Hungary. You can’t even read. It’s one of the most basic things and you don’t even know about Croat troops fighting Italians in WW1

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >so they fought AGAINST austria hungary damn mad
            Please be trolling.

            I'm sorry but are you moronic?
            Boroevic and the Croats would not have held back overwhelming Italian forces if they wanted Italy to come and annex their homeland.
            >WHO? butthole
            Pfft. Completely unhinged I see. Go have drink some tea and calm down.

            Oh so they lost?
            damn mad
            what has this got to do with Bosnia?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >wars are won only by the power of will
            I see you are moronic.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You really need to get on some sedatives man.
            Bosnians (including Croats, Muslims and Serbs) also fought valiantly for the AH empire.
            There were only two cases of widespread desertion. The Czechs in 1914 and they fought fine when they their units were moved away from Galicia. And Hungarians in 1918 when the army was starving and in total collapse.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Bosnia in the early 20th century was a territory as it had always been, not an ethnicity. "Bosnian" is a term used for someone hailing from the sovereign state of Bosnia since 1992.
            >including Croats, Muslims and Serbs) also fought valiantly for the AH empire.
            Oh damn crazy, so how many fought against A_H?
            Or was the empire just full of schizos internally fighting eachother?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I can call anyone living in Bosnia a Bosnian, just like anyone living in Berlin is a Berliner.
            >so how many fought against A_H?
            Not a lot? There wasn't any notable partisan activity going on. They were mobilized and did their duty.
            The Serb wet dream of a Greater Serbia had to be exerted by force, the people living in those areas didn't want any part of it.
            When it came time to defend Greater Serbia in 1941 all the non-Serb ethnicities deserted and it collapsed immediately.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            you can say whatever you like just like any delusional prick
            the fact is the main people groups of Bosnia were Serb Croat and Muslim
            >There wasn't any notable partisan activity going on
            yeah except for the Serbs who, you know, revolted against the ottomans, killed the austro-hungarian monarch and were coincidentally also the majority in bosnia
            nothing major nah
            guess Austria-Hungary was just having a schizo war with itself then
            >the people living in those areas didn't want any part of it.
            [citation needed]

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but I can cite another book for this:
            A History of the Habsburg Empire by Kann.
            Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Slovenes, etc didn’t want to be controlled by Serbs and only agreed to join a union that was equal. But the area was so quickly divided up by the Allies that they had to agree to work these constitutional and legal equality questions after unification. There was a strong movement among Croats and Slovenes called Illyrianism that made a big deal about being loyal to Austria, but it became less popular over time.
            Try reading literally any book about these places before commenting on them.
            >page numbers
            Give me five hours and I’ll provide that and the sources cited reinforcing these points.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            that's not how you cite homosexual,
            quote it, screencap it or fricking paraphrase it and give me tha page number so I can find that bullshit at least because I can say stuff like
            >the earth is flat
            and my source is
            >Tanith Lee tales from the flat earth

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Again, I don’t think you are capable of reading because you didn’t see the last part of my post. Regardless, it’s not the same thing. Sorry that these are actual books I’ve read about this topic, but I’ll show you to be a brainlet soon
            You can always, I don’t know, look these books up your fricking self and read them before acting like you know a damn thing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            listen to me carefully homosexual,
            if you're gonna use a whole book as a source instead of a quote or a screencap, you need to provide page numbers, because I'm not going to go and read a whole fricking book just for a single statement of yours. Did they not teach you this shit in university?
            It's very easy to cherry pick something out of context like this moron

            article with no source
            >edit that ourselves yeah?
            The source is The Economic Rise of the Habsburg Empire, 1750-1914 by David F. Good. That’s a third book that you will never read
            I’ve given you three sources on this and you’ve only pissed and shat yourself

            without providing the source properly and get BTFOd

            LMAO WAY TO have a nice day IN THE FOOT
            >However, in a comparison with Germany and Britain, the Austro-Hungarian economy as a whole still lagged considerably, as sustained modernization had begun much later.
            literally the following sentence from the book

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I can’t cite the specifics right this second, you fricking moron, but as soon as I can I’m going to show how moronic you are
            And see

            Let’s put those sentences together:
            > >The gross national product per capita grew roughly 1.76% per year from 1870 to 1913. That level of growth compared very favorably to that of other European countries such as Britain (1%), France (1.06%), and Germany (1.51%).
            >> >However, in a comparison with Germany and Britain, the Austro-Hungarian economy as a whole still lagged considerably, as sustained modernization had begun much later.
            So it’s growing faster than them but it’s still not closed the gap?! So that’s exactly what I’ve been saying this whole fricking time, you actual fricking buffoon.

            . No one argued they were a bigger economy.
            You’re so stupid, come on

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >can't provide citation when prompted
            >still rambles on without it
            would you not just wait till you get home, bellend?
            can't wait for this source now

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >so they fought AGAINST austria hungary damn mad
            Please be trolling.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sorry but are you moronic?
            Boroevic and the Croats would not have held back overwhelming Italian forces if they wanted Italy to come and annex their homeland.
            >WHO? butthole
            Pfft. Completely unhinged I see. Go have drink some tea and calm down.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Serb general
            >Svetozar Boroević
            What a tragic character. If only more Serbs from the Military frontier in Croatia were like him

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, the poor bastard really got fricked over after the war.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Should've genocided all the S*rbs and R*manians of the empire

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What did the Romanians do now?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          his great grandmother was probably raped by one of each member of the former empire

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Did you know that until the 1920s Bratislava was majority German and H*ngarian?
    Also look at all those German exclaves, looks like Buda and fricking Brno were majority German too.
    Pretty crazy just how much different the world was 100 years ago.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Did you know that until the 1920s Bratislava was majority German and H*ngarian?
      It was majority German, not Hungarian. There were almost no actual Hungarians, those were israelites who switched from German language to Hungarian after the Ausgleich. Look at pre-Ausgleich census records and remember census was based on language, not ethnicity.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    All off Austria-Hungary's successor states except for Austria and Hungary themselves where multiethnic.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, imaging crating picrel and thinking "This will surely fix the ethnic tensions in the Central Europe".

      It wasn’t just the Hungarians though. A third kingdom could have been created with the Czechs in terms similar to what the Hungarians got, but Austro-German liberals forced the government to back down from it.

      True. The irony it that Slavs were very loyal to the crown, despite the fears of German and Hungarian aristocrats, and giving them full rights and their own kingdoms would have given AH a massive boost.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Yeah, imaging crating picrel and thinking "This will surely fix the ethnic tensions in the Central Europe"
        They were never created for that purpose. Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia were primarily created to be strong allies against Germany.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >primarily created to be strong allies against *Poland (possibly), Italy and Bulgaria

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Too many Slavs.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not enough Slavs

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Homogeneous countries like France and Germany convinced the rest of the world that nationalism was the name of the game, at the expense of the British, Spanish, Russians, Austrians and Ottomans

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Anglo claws typed this post

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        My country benefited from nationalism, but I don't like OP's implication that its natural law

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah. People were fine with living in mutliethnic countries for a millenia.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        People never left their hamlets, so what difference did it make? Like they even had any idea what was out there

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >everyone was le shit eating peasant
          Tired of this meme. GTFO before I make you.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The vast majority of people were. Small town bumpkins today barely know anything idk you think some illiterate peasant would

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          People traveled even back then.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah. Most people never left their village, that’s all. Today, most people will never leave their country. Many won’t leave their cities. The travellers back then were an extreme minority, the worldview of the average peasant simply did not extend beyond their village and kinship network. The fact that they were members of a “multilingual empire” would be simply irrelevant to their day to day existence if there was awareness at all.
            There’s this weird tendency on IQfy to really glorify the lifestyle of ye olde days like it was really this pasadisical thing. I suspect there is an attempt to overcorrect from the Month Python conception of the past, but the fact is that old fashioned conception of the past as murky shit is actually much closer to the truth than this idea that they were all Marco Polos.
            I’m descended from peasants. I’ve heard all the peasant stuff. It was a very simple, parochial existence. The most exciting part of their lives was some shit parade down “Main Street” during a religious festival. Really you are giving these complete fricking bumpkins credit they don’t deserve. No, peasants did not live a worldly existence. Todays “peasants” don’t either and they actually have the option to.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Homogeneous countries like France
      moron

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >my variety of French is a real ethnicity
        Sorry mate

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Occitan is a different langue

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why wasn’t diversity their strength ?
    Because the Habsburgs instead of trying to spread the message of unity foolishly undermined the stability of the empire by manipulating the slavs against the hungarians in 1848, creating long term resentment on both sides.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >manipulating the slavs against the hungarians in 1848
      Exactly how did they do that? Hungary was pretty much going to become an independent country in 1848, but due to the Russians coming crashing down on them they compromised and accepted to stay in the empire, on the condition that they would get to bully, subjugate and magyarize their slavs.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The compromise happened in 1867 anon. That's 20 years after the revolution. Most of the Hungarian revolutionaries were exiled.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Alright, but how did Austria sow discord between Hungarians and Slavs?
          Hungarians were clearly the imperialists who wanted to dominate and magyarize their subjects.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It didn't. The Austrians wanted to eradicate Hungarians by germanizing all of them but they were forced to stop after Königgratz.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Hungary was pretty much going to become an independent country in 1848
        Hungary was not going for independence in 1848. That wasn't on the table until the Russian invervention in 1849. The April Laws were remarkably similar to the deal of 1867 so if you don't consider that independence they weren't in 1848 either. Hungary adopted them peacefully and the the Austrians escalated by sending the Croats to invade Hungary, starting the armed conflict.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The compromise happened in 1867 anon. That's 20 years after the revolution. Most of the Hungarian revolutionaries were exiled.

        It didn't. The Austrians wanted to eradicate Hungarians by germanizing all of them but they were forced to stop after Königgratz.

        What did the Romanians do now?

        Latin as solo officials language

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Will be restored in less than 10 years, screencap this

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They stopped trying to Germanize, Magyarize, and Catholicize the population and gave the Slavs an inch and they ended up taking a mile. It's never the tyrants who get toppled but the weak kings.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    linguistic nationalism destroyed it

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hungary needed to be completely subjugated.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >screeching serb that hasn't read any books: the thread

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What do you expect? A book for a Serb is just a reserve of toilet paper when wiping oneself barehanded starts to make things dirtier.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >underage mystery meat that can't quote a source

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This isn't an academic setting, no one has any obligation to get out books that they read years ago and find some passage for you.
      You literally didn't know who Borojevic was. This proves you haven't read jack shit on the topic.
      Fricking tutor yourself, you're an embarrassment.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        no source?
        ->statement is false?
        ->I accept your concession

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >mommy I haven't read anything about the topic pls tutor me
          >I won look at me
          Pathetic.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >still no source
            >hiding behind a book that doesn't even support his statements
            Pathetic.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >still thinking I'm your tutor

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he thinks I would seek tutorship from a charlatan that can't source his 1st statement

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That is literally what you are asking for. You haven't read anything and want us to do your homework for you.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I asked for a citation to a statement. I got 3 book titles thrown at me without quotation or anything at all, which after ctrl+fing them endlessly I was not able to verify the statement
            >largest growing economy in Europe before WW1
            but I knew I wasn't going to be able to verify such a ridiculous statement with not even the year specified, so I went looking for growth stats and still can not verify whether or not A-H was the largest growing economy in Europe, and I was generous to presume that you meant from 1870s onwards.
            So before you send me on some wild goose chase again, I kindly ask you for the [citation needed]

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Anon that provided the original statement and this

            Here's multiple sources. Go and read for a change.

            Clark, Sleepwalkers, fastest should provide you with the citation. The quote is "one of the fastest" in English and "fastest" in the edition of my language. That's where the confusion arises, sorry about that.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            no worries thanks for your time

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            M-mommy?

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was for a long time until the nationalist autism popped up.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is one of those examples where the form that the thread takes is actually the answer to the question posed by the thread. Fascinating.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *