Could taking overseas colonies have helped make austria hungary more cohesive

greatstreetwarrior

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
3,939
My hypothesis is that similar to how the english managed to get scots, Welsh and to a lower extent Irish on board and reducing internal troubles is by creating an external empire where the people of these other peripheral states felt like stakeholders during colonial rule. This helped them keep internal divisions in check and make these other citizens part of the prestigious empires elite.

Austria was invited to the Berlin conference. And I think it should have made a serious claim at taking some colony maybe the Belgian colony or some other territories in central africa. It could have also used non Austrians and non Hungarian groups in the Balkans as the ruling class and elites in their colonial processions. This would have helped them as stakeholders in the fruits of the empire and also help change demography in the mother country. What do you guys think of this plan
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
5,095
Dispargum
In Algeria in 1960, only about 10% of the population was European, mostly French. That's about 130,000 people. In India in 1921 there were 165,000 Britons.

The population of Austria-Hungary in 1911 was 51 million of which only about 22 million were Austrian or Hungarian. So you would need something like 8 million non Austrians and non Hungarians to leave Europe and move to the colonies. Even then, the Austrians and Hungarians would have to work together to maintain even a slight majority over the other groups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
15,022
Europix
Austro-Hungarian's fundamental internal problem wasn't the minorities, but the Austrian <-> Hungarian relationship. The minorities' problem was a side effect.

I'd say that a colonial imperium would more exacerbate than calm the internal tensions.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
24,516
SoCal
In Algeria in 1960, only about 10% of the population was European, mostly French. That's about 130,000 people. In India in 1921 there were 165,000 Britons.
The pieds-noirs in Algeria were actually mostly Italian, Spanish, and Maltese to my knowledge. Otherwise, though, I agree with you that significantly changing colonial demographics isn't exactly easy. What exactly would motivate millions of people from A-H to settle in a remote, undeveloped region such as the Congo even if A-H would have actually managed to acquire it?

The population of Austria-Hungary in 1911 was 51 million of which only about 22 million were Austrian or Hungarian. So you would need something like 8 million non Austrians and non Hungarians to leave Europe and move to the colonies. Even then, the Austrians and Hungarians would have to work together to maintain even a slight majority over the other groups.
Yeah, demographically speaking, A-H was not in a good position. That said, though, it sometimes is possible for a minority to sustain its rule over a country for a long time; just look at the Alawite Assads in Sunni-majority Syria.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
15,022
Europix
The pieds-noirs in Algeria were actually mostly Italian, Spanish, and Maltese to my knowledge. Otherwise, though, I agree with you that significantly changing colonial demographics isn't exactly easy. What exactly would motivate millions of people from A-H to settle in a remote, undeveloped region such as the Congo even if A-H would have actually managed to acquire it?



Yeah, demographically speaking, A-H was not in a good position. That said, though, it sometimes is possible for a minority to sustain its rule over a country for a long time; just look at the Alawite Assads in Sunni-majority Syria.

You don't need settle millions (and the Syrian example really hasn't anything to do with this colonial scenario). Just look at Portuguese, Dutch, , Belgians and compare to the size of their colonies. Settling is far from being the only answer.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
24,516
SoCal
You don't need settle millions (and the Syrian example really hasn't anything to do with this colonial scenario). Just look at Portuguese, Dutch, , Belgians and compare to the size of their colonies. Settling is far from being the only answer.
Portugal and the Netherlands are largely ethnically homogeneous (or at least were before WWII) while Belgium's possession of colonies didn't actually help it solve its own ethnic problems in any way.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
15,022
Europix
Portugal and the Netherlands are largely ethnically homogeneous (or at least were before WWII) while Belgium's possession of colonies didn't actually help it solve its own ethnic problems in any way.
Futurist, I was talking about settling the colonies. What were You talking about here:

What exactly would motivate millions of people from A-H to settle in a remote, undeveloped region such as the Congo even if A-H would have actually managed to acquire it?

Yeah, demographically speaking, A-H was not in a good position. That said, though, it sometimes is possible for a minority to sustain its rule over a country for a long time
?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
24,516
SoCal
In the second part of my quoted post here, I was talking about the ability of A-H to sustain its internal stability. Long-term internal stability wasn't necessarily easy for A-H to achieve due to its various ethnic tensions and ethnic problems.

In the first part of my quoted post here, I was talking about settling A-H's hypothetical colonies.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
15,022
Europix
In the second part of my quoted post here, I was talking about the ability of A-H to sustain its internal stability. Long-term internal stability wasn't necessarily easy for A-H to achieve due to its various ethnic tensions and ethnic problems.

In the first part of my quoted post here, I was talking about settling A-H's hypothetical colonies.
OK.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
24,516
SoCal
Yeah. Anyway, what was the point of your reference to Portugal, the Netherlands, and Belgium here?