oshron

hey, all. im still working on my alternative history project, and i was wondering what everyone thought would be the most plausible way for austria-hungary to remain at least a regional power after losing this world's equivalent of WW1 (here, the war is only a regional one that involves Austria-Hungary, the Balkan states, the Ottoman Empire, and, late in the war, Russia on the side of the balkans). austria and turkey still lose the war here.

any help on this?

Linschoten

I've always thought that Austria-Hungary could have survived a purely regional war, since both AH and Russia could have thought it was desirable for the stability of both regimes to reach an accommodation without pushing the other into a corner. So I think one has to imagine a situation where AH gets into difficulties in the war, but is allowed a face-saving settlement by its opponents.

bartieboy

Well, AH was an empire o fso many mixed peoples and cultures that it took a lot of work to keep it from falling apart.
So i am guessing that in another 15-20 years the empire would fall apart in a number of states.

but, very important, would the beurskrach still have happend?

GalataTurk

Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire have very similar state structures.There were so many ethnics and cultures in both states.So i agree with you about the same end for AH and Ottoman Empire.

Linschoten

Yes. I agree, WW1 hastened the end of the AH and Ottoman Empires, but for both it was only a matter of time.

oshron

im seeing maybe a more forced ethnic and national equality policy in austria being its saving grace. for troubles in the war, my idea was that, since austria has only one front to fight on, it more or less just dedicates all of its forces to the balkan front and convinces the ottomans to help them out (bulgaria isnt allied to them here and is instead on the side of the balkans, remaining neutral at first). they pound the balkans for about three and a half years until russia finally decides to help the balkans, overcomes the bolshevik uprising, and then more or less smashes the austrian and turkish front lines simultaneously and ends the war in eight months (same date as in our world)

as suggested, maybe russia would keep austria going because it saw opportunities to use it to its advantage. i imagine reparations will be forcibly paid to russia and the balkans by austria (and probably turkey, too) though austria maintains its empire while the ottomans are more or less dismantled


another thing i wrote up was that russia makes the transition from an absolutist state to a constitutional monarchy and its first prime minister as a constitutional monarchy is julius martov, the leader of the moderate Menshevik marxists (he survives his failing health at first and dies later than in our world). im kinda getting this idea from a turtledove book, but would russia having a marxist prime minister in power mean continuing the reparations paid by austria, or would martov more or less end them?

Zeno

What about a Serbian, Magyar or Czech heir to the Habsburg throne?

oshron

i suppose thats possible, but austria was already a constitutional monarchy at that time, so i think it would be more likely for there to be a serb or magyar or czech dominated parliament

btw, the hereditary head-of-state of austria, as well as many other states in this timeline, is the current pretender for throne (or their heir)

Linschoten

I'm inclined to doubt that Russia would have made the transition to a constitutional monarchy under Nicholas II, that would have required a man of stronger character and greater wisdom.

oshron

well thats been included, too his dad stays on the throne a bit longer so nick has more time to prepare. germany also isnt an enemy of russia in this timeline, so his marriage to a german princess isnt despised (the equivalent of germany isnt even involved in the war at any rate)