Austria 1852

[TRSjarmen]

Austrian foreign minister Schwarzenberg died in 1852 and Buol took over. Buol took the platform of Austrian neutrality. Which ended up alienating all of the European powers when they did not take sides in the Crimean War and when they finally did it was too late to gain favor in anyones eyes. This then led to the next two to three decades in which Austria was without dependable allies and was left weak and alone. Allowing for their inability to hold together their empire with the unifications of Germany and Italy. They constantly lost wars and were left, in many ways, struggling until 1918. Now I know all of Austria's troubles after 1852 do not all relate to their nuetrality, but my question is say you were in Buol's shoes. What would you do during the Crimean War? Keep in mind that if you choose sides then the likely battlefield would be your empire as Austria is between Russia and the Allies (France, Great Britian, Piedmont-Sardinia)

[SorelusImperion]

I would probably favour neutrality as well. Engaging in a war on either side would seem to dangerous to mee considering that the Empire almost collapsed only a few years ago and internal unrest had merely been surpressed instead of permanently adressed.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Neutrality was the best position for Austria at this time, one could gamble on taking part however, as already mentioned, Austria was internally weak, and furthermore, considering how much of the devestation would be across the Empire, it would do more damage than benifit arising from victory.

[Darth Red]

Moved to Alt. History. Generally a "what would you do?" thread should go there, for future reference.

Thank You--Red

[TRSjarmen]

But, what about the reprecussions that neutrality brought?

[Scipio Afracanis]

I think what there saying is long decline or big gamble for short term benefit at best or worst case speeding up decline by half a decade or so.