Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Why did the Austrian-Hungarian Empire cease to exist?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I realized the question was for DoP but I meant that empires don't last because they are composed of many different cultures and races that weren't put together voluntarily. If the countries that made

IOW, according to you Wilber, modern Canada will fall apart since it is a "mish mash of  nationalities cultures and languages". Heck, America/the modern world is the same - so it too will fall apart?

Germany is still with us, but not the German Empire. Turkey is with us, but not the Ottoman Empire. Austria and Hungary are both still with us too, but not their empire. What's so puzzling? The age of

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Poor tricks Michael. You suggest that people should read a guy who is like a Jewish Hitler. 

That's hyperbolic, as you tend to be.  There is a rich tradition of strategic literature that is informative, though the author or even topics may be odious.  Machiavelli's The Prince comes to mind.  Objectivity is a hallmark of an informed public, and an informed reader.  Might you trust yourself enough to sample something, once in awhile, that you don't agree with every word of ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's hyperbolic, as you tend to be.  There is a rich tradition of strategic literature that is informative, though the author or even topics may be odious.  Machiavelli's The Prince comes to mind.  Objectivity is a hallmark of an informed public, and an informed reader.  Might you trust yourself enough to sample something, once in awhile, that you don't agree with every word of ?

Hardly hyperbole. Kissinger is a proud, boasting war criminal. He was friends of all the most evil on the planet. He cultivated these friendships. If you want to fund such evil people, by all means go ahead. There is little more odious than those who pretend to scholarship in strategic when all they do is describe evil war crimes every bit the equal of the Nazis.

Machiavelli was from a time where war crimes were not of great import. Dealing with evil in an objective manner can certainly be done. 

What is truly hyperbole is when you talk of "objectivity" for being objective is not at all you. You are so frightened of objectivity that you will flee that all one can see is dust. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hot enough said:

1) Machiavelli was from a time where war crimes were not of great import. Dealing with evil in an objective manner can certainly be done. 

2) What is truly hyperbole is when you talk of "objectivity" for being objective is not at all you. You are so frightened of objectivity that you will flee that all one can see is dust. 

1) If 'war crimes', as you define them I suppose, were of 'great import' in Kissinger's time then why isn't he in jail ?

2) I'm sorry that you have to make a comment on my person in trying to make your point.  This speaks to my previous point.  If you don't respect my opinion, then don't respond.  Or, in the case with me, respond less often.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) If 'war crimes', as you define them I suppose, were of 'great import' in Kissinger's time then why isn't he in jail ?

2) I'm sorry that you have to make a comment on my person in trying to make your point.  This speaks to my previous point.  If you don't respect my opinion, then don't respond.  Or, in the case with me, respond less often.

1) Please, Michael. Every US president since WWII has been a Class A war criminal, as defined by Nuremberg! 

2) "That's hyperbolic, as you tend to be." [M Hardner] You do know the meaning of 'hypocrisy, don't you? 

It is precisely the opinions we don't respect that we comment on. If it wasn't so MLW would just be one big circle jerk. 

But the issue is you, massaging war criminals as people we ought to read and trust and who knows what else. Kissinger admitted to war crimes, he directed them, he sought alliances with mass murderers. This is the guy you like to read?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet again hot enough has to derail a conversation and take us off an a totally useless tangent with some sort of irrelevant, ad hominem "argument".  I thought this was an adult forum.

I don't care that you don't like Kissinger, or what your political leanings are, or what you think of the US.  What does concern me, on the other hand, is that I think we were talking about the Austro-Hungarian Empire and why it went kaput.  If you want to talk about what a dick you think Henry Kissinger was, isn't that the subject for another thread, perhaps?

P.S., have you yourself even read anything by Henry Kissinger?

P.P.S., can we please continue the discussion on Austria-Hungary?

Edited by JamesHackerMP
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JamesHackerMP said:

P.P.S., can we please continue the discussion on Austria-Hungary?

From World Order p80

 

"...history punishes strategic frivolity sooner or later. WW1 broke out because political leaders lost control over their own tactics.  For nearly a month after the assassination of the Austrian Crown Prince in Jun 1914... diplomacy was conducted on the dilatory model of many other crises surmounted in recent decades.  Four weeks elapsed while Austria prepared an ultimatum.  Consultations took place; because it was high summer, statesmen took vacations.  But once the Austrian ultimatum was submitted in July 1014, its deadline imposed a great urgency on decision making, and within less than two weeks, Europe moved to a war from which it never recovered"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the first few chapter of another book by Kissinger called Diplomacy.  I got as far as when he was talking about the "revolutionary" Otto von Bismark.  It seems that Austria-Hungary was something of an anomaly compared to the rest of the European nation-states; in that it wasn't really one at all.  The peace of Westphalia shaped the European nation-state system but the Holy Roman Empire (later Germany and Austria) were left behind.  Germany eventually had its nationalist revolution that formed what "Germany" is today but Austria didn't partake of it.  Personally, I don't see how they could have.  They were part of the German confederation, but the "boundary" of the confederation only included German Austria (kind of weird really).  WWI was also the last phase in the nation-building of Europe.

Compare it to a garden.  Europeans needed rose bushes to grow there but before they could be planted the last few weeds had to be removed to give the new rose bushes room to grow and flower.

Edited by JamesHackerMP
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-05-16 at 1:30 AM, August1991 said:

Around 1900, from Lemberg to Hermannstadt to Pressburg to Vienna, the Austrian-Hungarian Empire was an example of a modern, progressive, multicultural, multilingual, civilized, even federal State. Minorities were respected; intellectuals thrived.

And then, it ceased to exist. Why?

Why?  Is that the same 'why?' that the grade 11 teacher asks the class prior to instruction that answers the question?

   The place was called Austria-Hungary for a reason. The reason being Hungary. On paper Austria-Hungary should have been an example of all the things teacher listed, but in practice it most certainly wasn't.  The political infighting between the Austrian (old imperial) element and the Hungarian (nationalist) element were tremendous and debilitating to the Empire.    What the imperialists wanted the Hungarians didn't and vice-versa.  A strong army to achieve the dreams of re-claiming old Imperial glory? No way the Hungarians would allow such a thing for fear of that army being used to crush Hungarian ambitions. Grand modern, progressive, multicultural, multilingual, civilized Education ? No way the Hungarians would allow such a thing for fear of all the non-hungarians undermining Hungarian Nationalist ambitions.  Theres much more . A hugely complicated subject in which entire books (!!) have been written explaining why.  

 Perhaps teach would tell us which texts to read so's we can get on with studying and the tests 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Peter F said:

The place was called Austria-Hungary for a reason. The reason being Hungary. On paper Austria-Hungary should have been an example of all the things teacher listed...

The reason is "Hungary"? You remind me of the guy that I met in Bratislava. ("Hungarians are radical people.")

===

On paper, the US at its inception could have been a disaster.

Heck, on paper (or even not on paper), the European Treaty of 1763 or even Canada's confederation in 1867 could have provoked a disaster. It didn't.

Why? Canada is still together - but the Austrian-Hungarian Empire is not. 

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wilber said:

The answer is in the name. See the definition of Empire. 

Wilber, name? Definition? Empire? Confederation?

That's an easy way for you to avoid this basic human problem, even here in Canada.

====

Like in Lemberg years ago, we in Canada are in the process of creating a bilingual, multicultural society. Can we make this work?

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, August1991 said:

The reason is "Hungary"? You remind me of the guy that I met in Bratislava. ("Hungarians are radical people.")

===

On paper, the US at its inception could have been a disaster.

Heck, on paper (or even not on paper), the European Treaty of 1763 or even Canada's confederation in 1867 could have provoked a disaster. It didn't.

Why? Canada is still together - but the Austrian-Hungarian Empire is not. 

Two Reasons primarily: The USofA didn't and hasn't gone to war with us .  Quebec, until recently,  didn't seek soveriegnty.   You should read a book on the matter. The situation of Austria - Hungary and Canada are and were entirely different in almost every way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, August1991 said:

Wilber, name? Definition? Empire? Confederation?

That's an easy way for you to avoid this basic human problem, even here in Canada.

====

Like in Lemberg years ago, we in Canada are in the process of creating a bilingual, multicultural society. Can we make this work?

An empire is when several peoples are subject to another. Some last longer than others but only until the subject peoples want to leave. Canada is a confederation, a province can leave if it wants. Referendums are frowned upon in empires. Can we make Canada last in the long term? I don't know but I hope so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2017 at 4:47 PM, Wilber said:

An empire is when several peoples are subject to another. Some last longer than others but only until the subject peoples want to leave. Canada is a confederation, a province can leave if it wants. Referendums are frowned upon in empires. 

Most countries can't bear to lose any territory irrespective of their constitutional arrangements. Look at the US, Spain, India, China, Turkey, Nigeria, Georgia, Ukraine etc. It's all but impossible for a state to leave the US and they still talk of 'secession' down there when it is brought up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/24/2017 at 8:21 AM, Michael Hardner said:

I just finished World Order by Kissinger.  You should read that.  Peace Treaties, when well designed, assume that countries will generally pursue peace but will pursue war on an opportunistic basis.  Part of the problem with WW1 was that, like today, there had been a lasting peace and war was thought unlikely.

....

Looking back through this thread, I found this wise post of my web friend Hardner.

I read Kissinger's book: A World Restored - published 1954. He has largely being saying the same ever since, with good reason. 

Kissinger believed in the Congress of Vienna, or Bretton Woods: State agreements, status quo. The Congress of Vienna led to 100 years of peace; even the post 1945 agreements have given us, so far, 70 years of peace - we even survived a Cold War.

Yet, the Congress of Vienna did not ensure the survival, sustainability, of a multicultural state.

Moreover, with the will to fight battles in places like Vietnam, we in the West eventually defeated both Maoist China and the USSR.

Edited by August1991
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of getting off topic, we didn't defeat Maoist China. Mao died of natural causes; it took his successor and enemy, Deng Zhouping, to overturn his economic system and bring China into the later 20th century.

An empire, by the way, doesn't have to be multiethnic. Japan was an empire, ruled by an emperor and, with very little ethnic changes since then, is as close to a true "nation state" as the world will ever come. I think the difference between a kngdom and an empire is just what they call it, and what they call the head of state. The head of state of Austria-Hungary was called Emperor-King (Emperor of the Lands Represented in the Imperial Council [Austria] and King of the the Lands of the Holy Crown of St. Stephen [Hungary]).

Part of the reason for the ethnic unrest wasn't so much the Germans in Austria, but the Hungarians: they turned out to guard their precious 50% rule of the empire even more jealously than the ethnic Germans guarded theirs.

I think administrative inefficiency could have contributed. There were very few "joint" ministries, so effectively there were two cabinets, two prime ministers, two different parliaments, in two different locations. There were no passports for a subject of the Emperor/King: you carried an Austrian passport if you were a resident of Cisleithania, a Hungarian passport if you were a resident of Transleithenia. Every five or ten years (I forget which) the customs union between the two halves had to be renegotiated between the Imperial Council and the Diet of Hungary. One can only imagine the administrative paralysis caused by two different bodies of civil servants, hundreds of miles away from each other. 

But there have been other multiethnic states as someone brought up. Even ones that were ruled by strong monarchies. Russia for example. Yes, that collapsed, but not entirely. It might had a civil war, but the war reunited the Russian state (more or less) and in the end, they changed governments, more or less. The revolutions of 1917 had nothing to do with ethnic unrest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2018 at 6:04 PM, JamesHackerMP said:

At the risk of getting off topic, we didn't defeat Maoist China. Mao died of natural causes; it took his successor and enemy, Deng Zhouping, to overturn his economic system and bring China into the later 20th century.

....

Strongly disagree.

People like Eisenhower, Truman, Nixon - even Johnson, and far, far more important, many ordinary Americans - fought against the Red Chinese, the Soviets - in places like Vietnam.

Eventually, America defeated so-called "progressive" idiots like Mao.

Because of ordinary Americans fighting battles in Korea and Vietnam, America won the Cold War: And even ignorant peasants such as "Deng Zhouping" could say that "it doesn't matter whether the cat is white or black as long as it catches mice."

Because of Americans, many ordinary Chinese and Russians have (maybe, now) started to enter the Enlightenment, the 1700s.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2018 at 6:04 PM, JamesHackerMP said:

...

Part of the reason for the ethnic unrest wasn't so much the Germans in Austria, but the Hungarians: they turned out to guard their precious 50% rule of the empire even more jealously than the ethnic Germans guarded theirs.

....

I have heard this argument before: "the Hungarians are never happy; they always cause problems."

Well, in Canada, I hear the same argument: "The French are never happy; they always cause problems."

Yet, Canada is, so far - for about 250 years - a sustainable, civilised, bilingual, bireligious society.

Why? And why did Austria-Hungary fail? 

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, August1991 said:

People like Eisenhower, Truman, Nixon - even Johnson, and far, far more important, many ordinary Americans - fought against the Red Chinese, the Soviets - in places like Vietnam.

Eventually, America defeated so-called "progressive" idiots like Mao.

Incorrect.  Your blind spot keeps coming up.

The "West" was open, so they modified their pure capitalist model, when "the" public demanded it.  Even Americans like FDR and LBJ increased the government involvement in the social sphere and government control of the economy.  The people, on the whole, wanted it.  The USSR had no equivalent realization that led them towards a middle-ground between pure socialism and pure capitalism.  China did and they are still around.

The remaining contest is between the "dear leader, he's so clever" model and the "enlightened public vs. dumb masses" model.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2018 at 9:40 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Incorrect.  Your blind spot keeps coming up.

The "West" was open, so they modified their pure capitalist model, when "the" public demanded it.  Even Americans like FDR and LBJ increased the government involvement in the social sphere and government control of the economy.  The people, on the whole, wanted it.  The USSR had no equivalent realization that led them towards a middle-ground between pure socialism and pure capitalism.  China did and they are still around.

The remaining contest is between the "dear leader, he's so clever" model and the "enlightened public vs. dumb masses" model.

Hardner, where does one draw the line between Left and Right?

Are you "progressive" or now "conservative"?

=======

Some changes work; many other changes don't. At present, in my opinion, too many foolish people want to change things simply because they believe change is good.

In the 1910s, some so-called "progressive" Americans thought the same about alcohol - they managed to pass a constitutional amendment.

"Progressive" does not always mean good; sometimes it means disaster.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...