Originally Posted by
Dromikaites
I believe that if Franz Ferdinand would have survived the assassination attempt and subsequently ascended to the throne in 1916, European history might have taken a radical turn for the better.
First of all Franz Ferdinand was a champion of improving the relations with Serbia (Gavrilo Princip did shoot the wrong guy). In addition to that, he had repeatedly stated both in public and in his correspondence his intent of granting more political power to the Slavs and to the Romanians in his empire, elevating them to the same status the Hungarians and the Austrians enjoyed. That would have probably made the Hungarian politicians very unhappy because it meant removing Slovakia, Croatia and Transylvania from their control but would have eliminated any significant nationalist tensions.
Let's recap what other options the Poles, the Croats, the Bosnians, the Czechs, the Hungarians and the Romanians from Austria-Hungary would have had in the event they would have still wanted to secede:
1) The Hungarians, even though their political influence would have been severely diminished would have had no other choice but to accept the new status-quo because they were completely surrounded by nations they had taken great care to antagonize;
2) The Poles would have had to choose between sticking with Austria, where they would be part of the government, and being absorbed by Germany or Russia, where they would have no rights;
3) The same alternative would have been available to the Czechs and Slovaks. Guess what they would have chosen?
4) The Croatians had little interest in leaving a system where they would have had a saying in how the country is run only to be gobbled up by Italy or Serbia;
5) The Romanians from Transylvania did have a country to unite with. However at that time the Kingdom of Romania considered the Russians to be the more serious threat and therefore had joined the Triple Alliance. Any maneuvering to encourage the separation of Transylvania would have left them at the mercy of the Russians. Romania switched sides and grudgingly sided with Russia only because WW1 had started and the Triple Alliance/Central Powers had failed to score the quick victories they were supposed to score. With no WW1 going on Romania would have had no interest in rocking the boat, especially with Russia holding a piece of her territory almost as large as Transylvania.
Bottom line: with the exception of the Transylvanian Romanians, nobody else had a better alternative to keeping the Empire together.
Now comes the even better parts for the new Austrian Empire of Franz Ferdinand:
- Both Serbia and Romania were rather unstable politically. Since her independence Serbia hadn't managed to have a king who died of old age on his throne. The various rival groups were at each other's throats with the result the Serbian kings ended up deposed or assassinated.
The Romanian politicians had been a tad smarter and had opted to bring a German king in 1868. That had eliminated any temptation for staging coups and killing kings, but the country had a lot of problems due to her poor economy. In 1888 and 1907 two large scale peasant uprisings had seriously tested the stability of the country.
- If Franz Ferdinand would have stayed true to his idea of befriending Serbia, chances are the Serbians themselves would have gotten tired of coups and counter-coups and might have opted for a foreign king, just like their neighbors the Romanians, the Bulgarians and the Greeks had done. With the new power-sharing scheme in place, a skilled Serbian politician would have the chance to rule the whole empire, not just Serbia, if that elected foreign king would have happened to be the Serbian-friendly Franz Ferdinand.
- The same line of reasoning might have been valid for the Romanian politicians as well. In 1927 when the Romanian dynastic crisis happened Franz Ferdinand would have been 52 years old, a still young sovereign by then standards. Opting for him as the new King of Romania would have presented the Romanian politicians with a lot of advantages: in their bid for power at federal level they would have counted on both the votes of the Old Kingdom (Wallachia + Moldova) and of Transylvania. Within the Empire the Romanians and the Poles would have been the most populous nations, dwarfing everybody else. Anybody willing to form a stable government coalition would have had to negotiate it with the Romanians or with the Poles. The Austrians and the Czechs would have had the money, the Poles and the Romanians the votes, with Hungary, Serbia and Croatia extracting disproportionately large concessions from any ruling coalition because of their ability to tip the balance. In other words the Empire would have functioned pretty much like the EU operates today.
- A stable and prosperous empire atop of the Balkan Penninsula would have quickly brought Greece and Bulgaria in its sphere of influence, just like the EU did nowadays. Russia had nothing of real value to offer the Bulgarians. She had recently rubbed off the Bulgarians the wrong way during the first Balkan War by threatening to invade Bulgaria in case the victorious Bulgarian armies take Constantinople. In the event of a Russian-Austrian war it would have been more profitable for the Bulgarians to take Austria's side (like they actually did in WW1) because it would have suited Austria well to have Constantinople in Bulgaria's hands instead of Russia's;
- With Bulgaria and Greece in tow the Austrian Empire would have easily brought in Albania as well, thus escaping into the Mediterranean by bypassing the Otranto straits. That would have probably irritated the French and the British big time and might have pushed Italy out of the Triple Aliance and into the Entente but in the same time it would have attached Germany permanently to the Austrian cause. With Austria launching her capital ships into the Mediterranean the German fleet would be under less pressure in the North Sea.
- The most interesting game would have been around the fate of the Ottoman Empire. If the Austrian diplomacy would have played its cards right, the Bulgarians and the Ottomans might have managed to work out a stable agreement. Bulgaria didn't really need Constantinople (with a population larger than Bulgaria's) and could have been kept happy with having a good port on the Mediterranean (the port of Dedeagach/Alexadroupoli which they had taken from the Ottomans in the First Balkan War). If the Austrians could guarantee it against the Ottomans, the Bulgarians would probably be very happy. The Ottomans themselves could have cared less about it since they had plenty of good ports on the Mediterranean. Securing Austrian and German help against Russia in particular and the Entente in general would have been much more valuable;
- The only mistake Austria could have made would have been to neglect propping up the Ottoman Empire or worse, to get tempted into taking part in its dismantling now they had got access to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean and could project force on the Ottoman shores.