An Austro-Hungarian stab-in-the-back of Germany during World War I?

WolfBear

Well-known member
What if Austria-Hungary stabs Germany in the back during World War I? I'm specifically thinking of a separate peace where A-H loses Galicia, Bukovina, Bosnia, Dalmatia, and Trentino while being promised German Silesia in the event of an Entente World War I victory. The logic behind this would be if A-H will fear that Germany is going to lose the war and thus might prefer to switch sides and come out of this war relatively intact then to continue fighting up to the bitter end and thus see its empire completely disintegrate. There is some future precedent in this: Specifically, Romania's 1944 decision to switch sides during World War II in order to get Northern Transylvania back (among other reasons). It's worth noting that Silesia used to be Austrian territory until the 1740s, so having Austria get this territory back would NOT be a case of Austrian territorial aggrandizement--at least, not any more than if the CPs would have won the war, simply in a different direction.

Anyway, what do you think? Does this actually sound plausible? And what would Germany do in response to this? Attempt to implement regime change in A-H just like Nazi Germany did in Hungary in 1944 in real life? Would it actually succeed in doing this? Which A-H royal would it install as A-H's new ruler in the event of such a German-backed coup in A-H?

Any thoughts on all of this?
 

stevep

Well-known member
What if Austria-Hungary stabs Germany in the back during World War I? I'm specifically thinking of a separate peace where A-H loses Galicia, Bukovina, Bosnia, Dalmatia, and Trentino while being promised German Silesia in the event of an Entente World War I victory. The logic behind this would be if A-H will fear that Germany is going to lose the war and thus might prefer to switch sides and come out of this war relatively intact then to continue fighting up to the bitter end and thus see its empire completely disintegrate. There is some future precedent in this: Specifically, Romania's 1944 decision to switch sides during World War II in order to get Northern Transylvania back (among other reasons). It's worth noting that Silesia used to be Austrian territory until the 1740s, so having Austria get this territory back would NOT be a case of Austrian territorial aggrandizement--at least, not any more than if the CPs would have won the war, simply in a different direction.

Anyway, what do you think? Does this actually sound plausible? And what would Germany do in response to this? Attempt to implement regime change in A-H just like Nazi Germany did in Hungary in 1944 in real life? Would it actually succeed in doing this? Which A-H royal would it install as A-H's new ruler in the event of such a German-backed coup in A-H?

Any thoughts on all of this?

Its an interesting idea and something I've considered myself in ATLs. Less a stab in the back - other than the transfer of Silesia - than the AH empire simply looking out for its last chance of survival rather than being dragged down by imperial Germany and the lunatics there. With great reluctance but I believe that Karl was looking at a separate peace when it was clear that Berlin wouldn't agree any terms - with rather less extreme losses than mentioned but unfortunately the British and French thought keeping Italy on-board was more important.

If such a separate peace was signed the two issues would be what Germany does and whether there's also some internal coup attempt by hard liners in Vienna, or at least the more conservative elements of the German and Magyar elites. Much would depend on the actual date.

Assuming its when Karl was trying to get a deal, in 1917 it might also depend on whether before or after the Bolshevik coup. If before then less chance that Germany would intervene militarily as they would still consider Russia a potential threat. If after this then probably more likely unless late enough say in early 1918 that it decides to deal with Austria later and go straight for its last gasp attack in the west. In which case the regime in AH is fairly likely to survive depending on how well Karl can handle internal dissent. This could give a good bit more stability for the region in the coming years/decades.

Either way, even with a German intervention which wins but ties down forces, its going to be bad for Bulgaria and the Ottomans and possibly you could see at least the former making peace earlier to avoid too heavy a defeat as their now very isolated and vulnerable.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Its an interesting idea and something I've considered myself in ATLs. Less a stab in the back - other than the transfer of Silesia - than the AH empire simply looking out for its last chance of survival rather than being dragged down by imperial Germany and the lunatics there. With great reluctance but I believe that Karl was looking at a separate peace when it was clear that Berlin wouldn't agree any terms - with rather less extreme losses than mentioned but unfortunately the British and French thought keeping Italy on-board was more important.

If such a separate peace was signed the two issues would be what Germany does and whether there's also some internal coup attempt by hard liners in Vienna, or at least the more conservative elements of the German and Magyar elites. Much would depend on the actual date.

Assuming its when Karl was trying to get a deal, in 1917 it might also depend on whether before or after the Bolshevik coup. If before then less chance that Germany would intervene militarily as they would still consider Russia a potential threat. If after this then probably more likely unless late enough say in early 1918 that it decides to deal with Austria later and go straight for its last gasp attack in the west. In which case the regime in AH is fairly likely to survive depending on how well Karl can handle internal dissent. This could give a good bit more stability for the region in the coming years/decades.

Either way, even with a German intervention which wins but ties down forces, its going to be bad for Bulgaria and the Ottomans and possibly you could see at least the former making peace earlier to avoid too heavy a defeat as their now very isolated and vulnerable.

What were the proposed terms for the separate peace? Also, this would mean that if Italy would have remained neutral until then, then a separate peace with A-H would have indeed been made by the Anglo-French, right?

Anyway, reasonable analysis, Steve. FWIW, I wonder if Germany might still militarily intervene in A-H even if Russia is still in the war since it will know that it can't win the war if A-H switches sides, but maybe Germany won't have enough troops to do a successful military coup/operation/intervention in A-H. Not sure. Nazi Germany was able to do a successful occupation and later on regime change in Hungary in 1944 in real life, FWIW, but Hungary was smaller than A-H was.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Also, question: Will Upper Silesia be going to Poland while the rest of Silesia will be going to Austria in the event of a separate peace?

DW-ZHPPW4AEAtpK.jpg


And any chance that Bavarian independence can be secured as well?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

stevep

Well-known member
What were the proposed terms for the separate peace? Also, this would mean that if Italy would have remained neutral until then, then a separate peace with A-H would have indeed been made by the Anglo-French, right?

Anyway, reasonable analysis, Steve. FWIW, I wonder if Germany might still militarily intervene in A-H even if Russia is still in the war since it will know that it can't win the war if A-H switches sides, but maybe Germany won't have enough troops to do a successful military coup/operation/intervention in A-H. Not sure. Nazi Germany was able to do a successful occupation and later on regime change in Hungary in 1944 in real life, FWIW, but Hungary was smaller than A-H was.

I can't remember exactly as read a while back. Think he was prepared to make some concessions but not as many as Italy wanted and possibly accepting the loss of Bosnia HG which I think many realised was a drain on the empire. Unfortunately the Anglo-French weren't prepared to either make other concessions to Italy colonially or possibly simply say no to them. - Note, see here which says
In 1917, as the War was dragging on towards its fourth year, Sixtus' brother-in-law, Emperor Charles I, secretly entered into peace negotiations with France using Sixtus as intermediary. The Emperor also enlisted the help of his loyal childhood friend and aide-de-camp Count Tamás Erdődy. Charles initiated contact with Sixtus via neutral Switzerland. Empress Zita wrote a letter inviting her brother to Vienna. Zita and Sixtus's mother, who was living in neutral Switzerland, delivered the letter personally.

Sixtus arrived with French-agreed conditions for talks: the restoration to France of Alsace-Lorraine, annexed by Germany after the Franco-Prussian War in 1870; the restoration of the independence of Belgium; the independence of Serbia and the handover of Constantinople to Russia. Charles agreed, in principle, to the first three points and wrote a letter dated 24 March 1917, to Sixtus giving "the secret and unofficial message that I will use all means and all my personal influence" to the French President.

This attempt at 20th century dynastic diplomacy eventually failed, mainly because of the requirement for Italy to cede Tyrol. Germany also refused to negotiate over Alsace-Lorraine and, seeing a Russian collapse on the horizon, was loath to give up the war. When news of the overture leaked in April 1918, Sixtus's brother-in-law, Charles I of Austria, denied involvement until French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau published letters signed by him. Austria now became even more dependent on its German ally, and there a sharp rebuke for Charles by Wilhelm II.

The failed attempt of peace negotiations became known as the Sixtus Affair.

Thought there was some more details but probably be remembering wrongly. Or this was an attempt at a general peace and the attempt at a separate one came later?

I think such a separate peace was the last chance to save the dynasty and at least the core of the empire. Karl would need to get real reform that would win enough loyalty from the Slavic populations that would remain inside it. Whether the ruling elites would oppose that with force would be an issue.

For Germany they face a difficult decision. I would expect many would want to attack Austria and occupy it, if only for revenge but where would they get the forces from. Especially since assuming the bulk of the Germans and Magyar stay loyal to the dynasty and a hell of a lot of Slavs now have reason to be loyal or at least oppose such an invasion it would be bloody and take up a lot of resources. Also at least some Germans might decide its better to have Austria neutral as that would remove the need for supporting Austria in the Alps although it would isolate their other allies Bulgaria and Turkey. Even with Russia largely incapable of offensive action a German invasion and occupation of Austria would tie up men they need for any last gasp attack in the west.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Sixtus_of_Bourbon-Parma#Sixtus_affair
 

stevep

Well-known member
Also, question: Will Upper Silesia be going to Poland while the rest of Silesia will be going to Austria in the event of a separate peace?

DW-ZHPPW4AEAtpK.jpg


And any chance that Bavarian independence can be secured as well?

Well if Germany fights on and is inevitably defeated then it could lose Silesia to Austria/Poland and also the three southern states, which still retained a level of independent identity might have ended up in an Austrian sphere of influence.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Well if Germany fights on and is inevitably defeated then it could lose Silesia to Austria/Poland and also the three southern states, which still retained a level of independent identity might have ended up in an Austrian sphere of influence.

If Austria-Hungary is successfully occupied by Germany, though, will it get restored after the war by the victorious Allies or would the push for independence among its subject peoples have become too strong by the end of the war?
 

stevep

Well-known member
If Austria-Hungary is successfully occupied by Germany, though, will it get restored after the war by the victorious Allies or would the push for independence among its subject peoples have become too strong by the end of the war?

Good question. I did read something when looking at things yesterday on wiki that the US was already calling for the splitting up of the empire and its power over the allies is likely to increase the longer the war lasts. Plus there is a desire in many of the other nationalities to get away from the empire.

However a conflict in which Germany occupies the empire would make it a victim to some extent and also Karl seeking reforms and also peace could make him fairly popular with non-German groups [other than possibly the Magyars, Italians and the Orthodox Slavs who are unlikely to be mollified by anything]. Think i read he was supporting the transfer of Galicia to a new Poland OTL so you could see a reduced empire including Austria, Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia - which tended to be supportive of the empire to keep the Italians, Serbs and Hungarians at a distance - and some related areas. Possibly if in recompense for its losses and the German invasion it gets Silesia as you suggested. That would mean not only a well developed industrial region but largely encircle Bohemia, making an independent Czech state impractical.

Also, by this time in the war a German occupation is likely to be pretty brutal with a lot of looting as their war machine is increasingly running on empty. That would firm up desires among a lot of people to have some reliable protection against Germany so that could be a factor. Also with Russia pretty much out of the diplomatic and balance of power activities some medium/large state SE of Germany would be a useful counter to both a revanchist Germany and also whatever happens in Russia.

Of course as you may have guessed I have some bias here as I think such a state could be very useful for Europe and the world in the following decades.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Good question. I did read something when looking at things yesterday on wiki that the US was already calling for the splitting up of the empire and its power over the allies is likely to increase the longer the war lasts. Plus there is a desire in many of the other nationalities to get away from the empire.

However a conflict in which Germany occupies the empire would make it a victim to some extent and also Karl seeking reforms and also peace could make him fairly popular with non-German groups [other than possibly the Magyars, Italians and the Orthodox Slavs who are unlikely to be mollified by anything]. Think i read he was supporting the transfer of Galicia to a new Poland OTL so you could see a reduced empire including Austria, Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia - which tended to be supportive of the empire to keep the Italians, Serbs and Hungarians at a distance - and some related areas. Possibly if in recompense for its losses and the German invasion it gets Silesia as you suggested. That would mean not only a well developed industrial region but largely encircle Bohemia, making an independent Czech state impractical.

Also, by this time in the war a German occupation is likely to be pretty brutal with a lot of looting as their war machine is increasingly running on empty. That would firm up desires among a lot of people to have some reliable protection against Germany so that could be a factor. Also with Russia pretty much out of the diplomatic and balance of power activities some medium/large state SE of Germany would be a useful counter to both a revanchist Germany and also whatever happens in Russia.

Of course as you may have guessed I have some bias here as I think such a state could be very useful for Europe and the world in the following decades.

Good analysis, Steve. FWIW, I myself think that the Hapsburg Empire needed a bit more glue holding it together than just the Hapsburg monarchy. I mean, the EU at least has a common history of European Christian civilization, but Austria-Hungary doesn't quite have its own unique niche to the same extent, I think. This doesn't necessarily mean that having A-H survive would be a bad idea, of course, only that Austria-Hungary needs more of a unifying focus for its people.

The best that A-H can say for itself, I think, is that geography favors it:

Europe_topography_map_en.png





Both Galicia and Silesia (not to mention Bukovina!) would be geographically out of place in A-H, though.
 

stevep

Well-known member
Good analysis, Steve. FWIW, I myself think that the Hapsburg Empire needed a bit more glue holding it together than just the Hapsburg monarchy. I mean, the EU at least has a common history of European Christian civilization, but Austria-Hungary doesn't quite have its own unique niche to the same extent, I think. This doesn't necessarily mean that having A-H survive would be a bad idea, of course, only that Austria-Hungary needs more of a unifying focus for its people.

The best that A-H can say for itself, I think, is that geography favors it:

Europe_topography_map_en.png





Both Galicia and Silesia (not to mention Bukovina!) would be geographically out of place in A-H, though.


If Silesia was 'returned' to a state including Bohemia then its probably less out of place, especially with an independent Poland than with Germany to which its attached by a relatively thin link. Historically it was part of the kingdom of Bohemia for quite a while.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
If Silesia was 'returned' to a state including Bohemia then its probably less out of place, especially with an independent Poland than with Germany to which its attached by a relatively thin link. Historically it was part of the kingdom of Bohemia for quite a while.

Silesia's connection to Germany wasn't that narrow:

1024px-German_Empire_-_Prussia_-_Silesia_%281871%29.svg.png
 

stevep

Well-known member
Silesia's connection to Germany wasn't that narrow:

1024px-German_Empire_-_Prussia_-_Silesia_%281871%29.svg.png

Well that's wider than I remember seeing on some maps for when it was 1st taken by Prussia. Possibly there had been some provincial boundaries changed since then? Or simply that my memory isn't what it was. o_O

Plus I was presuming that Poland is formed pretty much as OTL so Posen region would be Polish which means its only the NW part that borders Germany.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Well that's wider than I remember seeing on some maps for when it was 1st taken by Prussia. Possibly there had been some provincial boundaries changed since then? Or simply that my memory isn't what it was. o_O

Plus I was presuming that Poland is formed pretty much as OTL so Posen region would be Polish which means its only the NW part that borders Germany.

The border between Silesia and the rest of Prussia was narrower initially:

prussia17401763.gif


But in addition to Posen, Prussia also subsequently unified with Saxony, et cetera.
 

stevep

Well-known member
The border between Silesia and the rest of Prussia was narrower initially:

prussia17401763.gif


But in addition to Posen, Prussia also subsequently unified with Saxony, et cetera.

Ah that's what I was thinking of but forgotten the expansion due to Prussia annexing much of Saxony in 1815.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Ah that's what I was thinking of but forgotten the expansion due to Prussia annexing much of Saxony in 1815.

Yep, Saxony used to be quite a bit larger relative to Prussia:

Saxony and Prussia in 1789:

A_map_of_Saxony_and_Prussia_in_1789.jpg


Saxony and Prussia in and after 1815:

The_unification_of_Germany_1815_71.jpg


Also, off-topic, but you might be interested in this 1917 article which argues in favor of the creation of an independent Czechoslovakia:


It was also published here, but without the map:


He's capable of selling the Czechoslovakia idea very well!
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
By the way, @stevep, do you know what I think that Austria-Hungary's greatest achievement was? Spurring on the development of Ukrainian nationalism in Galicia. This nationalism eventually spread to all of Ukraine, eventually culminating in the successful Ukrainian resistance against Russia's invasion this year.

You can see the Ukrainian parts of A-H here:

Austria_Hungary_ethnic.svg


It is due to living under A-H rule for 150 years and Galicians attaining mass literacy under it that present-day Ukrainians view themselves as a part of Europe instead of as a part of Russia. Though it certainly helps that Europe is richer and more accomplished than Russia and also much less brutal than Russia.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Well that's wider than I remember seeing on some maps for when it was 1st taken by Prussia. Possibly there had been some provincial boundaries changed since then? Or simply that my memory isn't what it was. o_O

Plus I was presuming that Poland is formed pretty much as OTL so Posen region would be Polish which means its only the NW part that borders Germany.
Very likely.I read memories of polish aristocrat,Hipolit Korwin-Milewski,who was trusted person of french goverment since 1915 as somebody who knew how russian politics are made.
He wrote,that after Versaile many french diplomats said,that destroing A-H was crime against France,becouse it made german stronger.
Here,with A-H intact/almost/ we would have more stable Europe,especially with free Bavaria - if germans try anything,A-H emperors would be first to fight.

By the way, @stevep, do you know what I think that Austria-Hungary's greatest achievement was? Spurring on the development of Ukrainian nationalism in Galicia. This nationalism eventually spread to all of Ukraine, eventually culminating in the successful Ukrainian resistance against Russia's invasion this year.

You can see the Ukrainian parts of A-H here:

Austria_Hungary_ethnic.svg


It is due to living under A-H rule for 150 years and Galicians attaining mass literacy under it that present-day Ukrainians view themselves as a part of Europe instead of as a part of Russia. Though it certainly helps that Europe is richer and more accomplished than Russia and also much less brutal than Russia.

Yes,after Austria lost 1866 war and becomed A-H with strong polish minority,they decided to counter it by creating russin nation,,which was basically made from nothing/locals considered themselves as,well,locals/
One of those rusins invented name Ukraina as nation,before that it mean simply borderland.

It was against polish minority,but Russia treated it as crime against Russia,and one of important reason for war.
In 1920 it not worked yet althought germans made ukrainians state for them with bigger army then polish - /most locals still considered themselves as locals/,in 1939 not worked,too -
But,tis time A-H intrigue finally worked.Pity,that Habsburgs could not profit from that!
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
@stevep You might enjoy this map of a reformed surviving Austria-Hungary:

A map of a hypothetical enlarged United States of Greater Austria:



Personally, I'd remove the Italians from it, but everything else there looks rather nice. :) I do wish that it would lose its colonies in the long(er)-run, though. Though A-H rule could be more benevolent than what might replace it, so maybe not! :(

@stevep What do you think?
 

stevep

Well-known member
@stevep You might enjoy this map of a reformed surviving Austria-Hungary:

Well I'm not sure where those overseas colonies came from as Austria never really had either the interest or capacity for such. Agree their better off without NE Italy as well as unless Italian nationalism hasn't developed at all - which is probably unlikely without drastic changes elsewhere. Serbia could be a pain because of the deep distrust between Catholics and Orthodox.

Ah just scrolled down a bit and seen its mentioning such a state after a CP win in WWI. As such it might be that large but I doubt it would include overseas colonies and more likely it would have protectorates in western Russian empire. Not even sure where in E Africa those lands are? Might be Sudan and Uganda/Kenya, possibly part of Belgium Congp?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Well I'm not sure where those overseas colonies came from as Austria never really had either the interest or capacity for such. Agree their better off without NE Italy as well as unless Italian nationalism hasn't developed at all - which is probably unlikely without drastic changes elsewhere. Serbia could be a pain because of the deep distrust between Catholics and Orthodox.

Ah just scrolled down a bit and seen its mentioning such a state after a CP win in WWI. As such it might be that large but I doubt it would include overseas colonies and more likely it would have protectorates in western Russian empire. Not even sure where in E Africa those lands are? Might be Sudan and Uganda/Kenya, possibly part of Belgium Congp?

These lands are Sudan, South Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Ghana, and South Vietnam. Ghana and South Vietnam have their own separate maps.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top