Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Why did the Austrian-Hungarian Empire cease to exist?


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, August1991 said:

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

Are you "progressive" or now "conservative"?

I'm pretty conservative on a 1970s scale if that's what you're getting at.

7 hours ago, August1991 said:

=======

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.

They may *say* change is good but I suspect they just feel that they want change and are unable to articulate it.  

Rather than "change is good" I would say "change in inevitable" and "Humans fall over themselves trying to mitigate change" 

7 hours ago, August1991 said:

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.   

 

And yet over time things always get better.  Why is that ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 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

On ‎24‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 1:40 PM, 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.

Always and everywhere the real model is 'Oh God, let's keep the mugs confused, or they'll start caring about their own interests and cut our profits!'   The two you mention are surely just secondary variations on the lie machine?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Penderyn said:

Always and everywhere the real model is 'Oh God, let's keep the mugs confused, or they'll start caring about their own interests and cut our profits!'   The two you mention are surely just secondary variations on the lie machine?

"Mugs confused"?

Sorry, I have always thought that ordinary people - people like me - are not "mugs".

Pendeyr,

Am I a mug?

 

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You seem to have a limited knowledge of history.  I already mentioned democratic openness leading to reforms, why are you ignoring that?

Michael, you seem to believe knowledge "progresses". It doesn't.

Time is not a proxy for knowledge.

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

Michael, you seem to believe knowledge "progresses". It doesn't.

Have you ever heard the term 'standing on the shoulders of giants' ?  The existence of this term alone disproves your point.  

6 hours ago, August1991 said:

Time is not a proxy for knowledge.

How does knowledge not progress ?  Do you invent the wheel every morning before you ride it to work ?

 

thorf.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, August1991 said:

"Mugs confused"?

Sorry, I have always thought that ordinary people - people like me - are not "mugs".

Pendeyr,

Am I a mug?

 

Since farming was introduced a small minority have lived off the back of those who did the work, and so it has continued    They produced such civilization as we inherit, but also all sorts of religious nonsense and a great deal of killing, all justified by bullshit to keep the majority keeping them.    Very few of this majority know their arse from their elbow, and believe what they are told.   I call such people mugs, since I don't have to kid them.   Your own position is best known to your goodself, obviously. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/03/2018 at 7:03 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1) Rather than "change is good" I would say "change in inevitable" and "Humans fall over themselves trying to mitigate change" 

2) And yet over time things always get better.  Why is that ?

1) Change is inevitable, but its pace needs to be controlled and its extent, blunted. Not all changes are good solutions to a perceived problem.

2) Always? All things? Pollution, global warming, mass extinction, nuclear weapons...

Edited by OftenWrong
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/05/2017 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?

The empire had enemies from within and without, but it always did. The political will of that age was shifting away from the Monarchy towards that of a Republic. The sceptre of power was changing hands, as it is doing again today.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1) Change is inevitable, but its pace needs to be controlled and its extent, blunted. Not all changes are good solutions to a perceived problem.

1) Humans think they control everything.  I love humans.

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

2) Always? All things? Pollution, global warming, mass extinction, nuclear weapons...

2) All of those threats have become or will become better over time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fear that that the Austrian-Hungarian Empire is the model for a multi-cultural, bi-lingual State.

Yet, in Canada, we are still a civilized State - despite being bi-lingual, and even multi-cultural.

(In Canada, we have no official State cultural - but our federal State has two languages.)

====

I think that Canada is sustainable - and even civilized.

Doable but not certain.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2018 at 9:47 AM, OftenWrong said:

The empire had enemies from within and without, but it always did. The political will of that age was shifting away from the Monarchy towards that of a Republic. The sceptre of power was changing hands, as it is doing again today.

 

Don't forget that Hungary didn't technically cease to be a monarchy. They appointed Admiral Horthy as "regent" of the Kingdom of Hungary, in which post he remained for a while.

Republics, monarchies...today these words are little more than two-dimensional terms for what can be very similar, sometimes very different, things.

Edited by JamesHackerMP
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎05‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 11:19 AM, JamesHackerMP said:

Don't forget that Hungary didn't technically cease to be a monarchy. They appointed Admiral Horthy as "regent" of the Kingdom of Hungary, in which post he remained for a while.

Republics, monarchies...today these words are little more than two-dimensional terms for what can be very similar, sometimes very different, things.

I can hardly see that the distinctions matter much, except that an established Head of State, tends to be less hated tghan a political one.    I think the main problem with these antique Empires though was the rise of nationalism.    There is scarcely a European state consisting of a single nationality, so this notion breaks 'em up.   Hungary was particularly full of minorities, and had been very bossy.    As far as I can see, only France has ever got away with a 'national' state that wasn't, God knows why.    It was the Revolution possibly.

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...