The Fate of the Austro-Hungarian Empire
In my recent two-part series, I broke down the potential moments where the Schlieffen Plan could have succeeded, leading to a German victory in 1914. If that had happened, I outlined what the peace terms might have been. One interesting storyline to consider out of that is the fate of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The empire would’ve endured without an extended war, but to what extent and for how long?
To explore this scenario, I will provide some background on the empire (its history is quite complex, so forgive me as I do my best to summarize) before highlighting the empire's struggles at the outbreak of war. We’ll then look at what it would’ve meant for them to have been on the winning side with Germany if the Schlieffen Plan had delivered a quick victory. First, what was the Austro-Hungarian empire? How did it form, and why was it involved in World War I to begin with?
Formation of the Duel Monarchy
The Austro-Hunagarian Empire was a multi-national constitutional monarchy. It is also known as the 'Dual Monarchy' because of the Compromise of 1867. But first, some background. In the lead-up to the compromise, the Austrian Empire was formed out of the ashes of the Holy Roman Empire, which had been dissolved after it lost at the Battle of Austerlitz to Napoleon in 1806.
For one thousand years up until the end of World War One, the Hapsburg family had maintained a dynasty that saw them become the kings of Austria, Bohemia, Germany, Hungary, Spain, and more. The Hapsburgs maintained their power after the wars with Napoleon, becoming the emperors of the newly formed Empire of Austria and the kings of the Kingdom of Hungary.
However, the Kingdom of Hungary had always been treated as a separate realm, even during the Holy Roman Empire. It had its own constitution and parliament, which gave it greater autonomy to ignore imperial decrees from Vienna. This all came to a boiling point in 1848. Despite Emperor Ferdinand I ratifying the April Laws, which intended to reform Hungary into a parliamentary democracy, his successor, Franz Joseph, reneged on the ratification, plunging Hungary into revolution.
After the revolt was put down, the Kingdom of Hungary was stripped of its autonomy and placed under a military dictatorship through martial law. For eighteen years, it remained under this dictatorship. But then, several things happened. The Austrian Empire had incurred massive debt in its involvement in the Crimean War, the Second Italian War of Independence, and its loss in the Austro-Prussian war, officially making Prussia the dominant German state as it absorbed the previous German Confederation into the North German Confederation (a precursor to the German Empire).
With the culmination of these events, the Austrian Empire tried to reconcile with Hungary in self-preservation. That precipitated the Compromise of 1867, which formed the “Duel Monarchy” and the empire we’d see enter World War I. The Duel Monarchy established two sovereign states that had their own constitutions, governments, and parliaments, sharing power with a single Hapsburg ruler who would be the Emperor of Austria and the King of Hungary (hence, the Austro-Hungarian Empire).
The Austrian portion of the empire was known as ‘Cisleithania’ (say that ten more times but faster). It was the territory divided by the Leitha River, separating Lower Austria and Hungary, and consisted of seventeen crown lands. The compromise in this half of the country defined many rights to numerous individual nationalities (to call it the Austrian portion is really a generalization). It was so diverse that a temporary solution in referring to these lands was landed on, calling them the ‘kingdoms and lands represented in the Imperial Council.’
For the Hungarian half of the empire, it was called ‘Transleithania.’It contained the dominant Kingdom of Hungary with the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia (the latter had been united with Hungary since the Middle Ages). It also included an administratively independent free city of Rijeka (known in Croatian) or Fiume (in Italian). It was a port on the upper Adriatic.
Okay, that’s a lot to digest. If your head isn’t spinning yet, congratulations. But it’s important to understand as we move forward in this alternate timeline.
The Geopolitical Situation in the Balkans
The Balkans were a hotbed of crises leading up to the outbreak of World War I. It was the convergence point for three major powers with dividing lines along ethnic and religious identities. Muslim Turkey (Ottoman Empire) had invaded and ruled parts of the Balkan region since the 14th century. Meanwhile, Orthodox Russia had always had strong Slavic and Orthodox ties to the region (the Western Roman Empire spoke Latin and was Catholic; the Eastern Roman Empire was Orthodox and spoke Greek) and acted as the patron to states that identified as such, like Serbia. At the same time, Catholic Austria was trying to keep the balance of power in the region from shifting in favor of the Ottomans or the Russians. Serbia would be the key state that Austria would see as the problem that must be dealt with in the Balkans.
The region radically changed in a series of crises and wars leading up to 1914, shifting the balance of power to a point that concerned Austria. The Ottoman Empire had lost a war against the Balkan League, losing control over the territory it had dominated for 500 years. Dissatisfied with its territorial gains, a second war between Bulgaria (a rival to Serbia and thereby a potential ally of Austria) and Serbia, Romania, Greece, Montenegro, and the Ottoman Empire (the latter saw it as an opportunity to regain lost territory). Bulgaria would lose the war, enabling Serbia’s expansion to the coast. Austria threatened them to pull back from the sea. They initially refused until France and Russia both applied pressure, forcing Serbia to pull back from the lands that would become Albania.
In both instances, Austria could not mobilize its army fast enough to get involved. It also lacked support from its ally, Germany, and feared Russia’s mobilization. A few years before, Serbia was considered a problematic yet small state that Austria could’ve easily crushed. Yet, in five years, Serbia and other regional nations had expanded in size. Serbia had doubled, and while it did not rival other major powers, it was big enough to be a military problem for Austria. However, Austria experienced many defeats during the time of Emperor Franz Joseph, and he was not interested in more adventures.
However, Conrad von Hötzendorf, Chief of Staff of the Austro-Hungarian Army, had advocated for military interventions in the Balkans up until his dismissal in 1911 for his persistence. Leopold von Berchtold was the Austro-Hungarian ambassador to Russia and became the foreign minister in 1912 before the First and Second Balkan Wars. With Serbia doubling in size under his watch, his reputation suffered as a man unfit for the role, and he knew this very well. With two opportunities slipping through their fingers to intervene in the Balkans, these men worried more that such moments would be few and far between. So when the assassination of Franz Ferdinand happened, they were not going to let it go to waste.
The Black Hand Lashes Out
Nationalism, in general, was on the rise world, especially in Europe and the Balkans. The Serbs were actively drawing closer to their Slavic brothers in Russia and away from the Hapsburgs. As such, some key events happened in the lead-up to 1914, including:
1903: disgruntled army officers staged a coup, murdering the king and queen and throwing them naked out of the palace window in Belgrade.
1908: Austro-Hungary annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, angering the Serbs, who sought the help of Russia but to no avail as the Russians licked their wounds from their loss in the Russo-Japanese war.
1911: the same individuals that staged the coup in 1903 founded the Union or Death, the Black Hand
1912-1913: the First and Second Balkan wars led to Serbia’s expansion, which put them squarely in Austria's crosshairs.
In 1913: lacking support from Russia, France stepped in to support Serbia in money, arms, and training for their army to keep Austria bogged down so France, Russia, and Britain could focus solely on defeating Germany if war came.
Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijevic, a Pan-Serb who was the country's chief of military intelligence and the leader of the Black Hand, was the mastermind behind Serbia's success in the First and Second Balkan Wars. Known as “Apis,” a nickname derived from a divine bull in ancient Egyptian mythology for his physical strength, he plotted the assassination of Franz Ferdinand to draw his country further into conflict.
Apis and the Serbian generals viewed Serbian Prime Minister Nikola Pasic and his government as wholly inadequate. They tried to oust him in June of 1914, but when Russia and France insisted on his reinstatement, they stood down. This was viewed as a defeat for Apis, so his assassination plot was even more important in his eyes to achieve the ultimate demise of Pasic’s government—even if it meant putting his country at war.
The Rise of Charles I
Ironically, Franz Ferdinand believed in giving the Hapsburg's Slavic subjects a voice in empire governance. His controversial marriage and forward-thinking views made him a “nuisance” in the eyes of Emperor Franz Joseph, his uncle. His assassination, along with his wife, was strangely welcome news to the emperor. His private secretary remembered him saying their deaths “has re-established the order which I, alas, could not preserve.”
I won’t discuss the ensuing events post-assassination that led to the outbreak of World War I. Though fascinating and important to the real timeline of events, I want to steer the conversation back to our what-if scenario. In this reimagined timeline, the Schlieffen Plan works, and Germany successfully defeats the Entente. So what would this have meant for Austro-Hungary?
Serbia would’ve been defeated, maybe sooner. Whether they approached the peace table, fought on, or lost militarily is probably a moot point. Given everything that had happened in the region leading up to this moment, the Austrians would’ve wanted to subdue the Serbs once and for all, and they most likely would have pursued a brutal military occupation. Russia would’ve had little capability to intervene after a defeat in the east against Germany. And Austro-Hungary would’ve benefited from a Germany hellbent on supporting them. After not supporting them in the first two Balkan wars, Germany knew they needed to stand by their junior ally on the continent—that doesn’t bode well for Serbia.
However, in 1916, Emperor Franz Joseph died, leading to the ascension of his grandnephew Charles I. He was very different from the deceased emperor. He believed in the federalization of the empire to solve the ethnic and religious challenges it faced. He proposed something similar in 1918 with his “Manifesto to the Peoples,” which was too little too late. Assuming the empire endured to this point, could such a thing work in a world without the pressures of World War I?
Federalization of the Austrian Half
Charles I had only proposed the federalization of Cisleithania (the ‘Austrian’ half of the empire). It’s unclear why that was the case, but one would assume he understood that the other parts of the empire would’ve been challenging to federalize. Hungary had been experiencing the Magyarization of their state (forced assimilation of ethnic minority groups), which was not very popular for obvious reasons. Also, Hungary was primarily Protestant, further putting it in opposition with its neighbors.
It’s hard to say how federalization would’ve gone. Despite Hungary not gaining its independence as intended in the previous century, the Dual Monarchy mutually benefited the kingdom and Austria. They might not have been as receptive to the federalization of just Cisleithania, especially if it meant losing some of its territory. Federalization probably would’ve led to another crisis in the region (when Charles I suggested it in 1918 in our timeline, it backfired and accelerated the dissolution of the empire).
One thing to consider is the Serbian reaction. After being brutally occupied, would they have seen this as an opportunity to rebel, leading to a potential civil war in the region? And what would Bulgaria and other nations do? Everyone was unhappy with what they got from the first two Balkan wars. Would these nations see this as an opportunity to wage another war to gain territory (especially Bulgaria)? I think it’s safe to say that whatever would’ve happened, it would’ve been messy.
Alienation from Germany
One final thought regarding this scenario is the relationship between Austria and Germany. Charles I's wife, Zita of Bourbon-Parma, had ties to Belgium, given that her brother, Prince Sixtus of Bourbon-Parma, was serving as an officer in its armed forces. If Austria somehow found a way out of the Dual Monarchy and federalized their territories, it’s not inconceivable that Austria and the German relationship would deteriorate over time, given Germany’s violent occupation of those lands. Also, we must remember that Charles I secretly pursued peace with the Entente in our timeline. When Germany found out, they took over their military.
Charles I was the exact opposite compared to the Prussian military mindset that dominated the ruling class of the German Empire. He was anti-war and favored social democratic ideas. Considering all these factors, I can’t imagine Germany liking their junior ally going the way of social democracy with a federalized state.
So, what would that mean for any future conflict? Would Germany even support federalization? And to what extent would they get involved? Much like how Hitler sized Austria in our timeline, would’ve Germany done the same if they saw Austria drawing closer to the Entente nations at some point in the future? One thing seems apparent to me. An even more isolated Germany with fewer allies would’ve probably not made them less aggressive on the continent and around the globe. Another World War in some form seems inevitable. Especially when you consider what's going on elsewhere.
In the next blog, we’ll examine the Ottoman Empire and its collapse. I’ll also explore what it means in this alternate timeline, particularly the Berlin to Baghdad Railway and what the Ottoman collapse would’ve meant for the struggle between the European powers.
Sources:
Meyer, G.J. A World Undone: The Story of the Great War 1914 to 1918. New York, Bantam Books, 2015.
Images:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nations_of_the_Austro-Hungarian_Empire_-_1911.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Second_Balkan_War-es.svg
Inspiration:
Comments