AHC/WI Austria-Hungary survives an Entente victory mostly intact?

Is it possible for Austria-Hungary to survive intact but still have Germany and the Ottomans collapse?

If so, how does this affect the interwar period and the rise of the Nazis? Are the Nazis just butterflied away? Can Germany even annex a surviving Austria-Hungary, given how weak Germany was at the time of the OTL Anschluss?

To clarify what I mean by “mostly “intact”, losing South Tirol, Croatia, Bosnia and Galicia are fine, but the core lands of Austria, Bohemia and the Carpathian basin must stay.

I heard OTL Austria-Hungary played with the idea of jumping ship in 1917, so maybe start there?

Also, I posted this from my phone, so apologies for any errors.
 
Allow me to copypaste an answer of mine from another, similar thread:

The latest POD for an A-H survival is the summer of 1918. Not launching the 2nd Piave offensive saves A-H's reserves from being completely depleted. That could provide the means both to soar up the failing Bulgarian defences on the Balkans and to resist the Italian assaults in Autumn. Like that, the Central Powers can ask for an armistice together once the Germans admit defeat too.

Once the war is over, the chance of Austria-Hungary falling apart becomes negligible. Albeit reduced in size and equipment, the army would be now free to maintain order within the country, and thus the most radical and disruptive elements could be kept down. As for the rest, political concessions would be necessary to soothe the nerves of the public, and it would be a golden opportunity to do so. The German and Hungarian nationalists, but also the higher classes in general could be kept at bay by the threat of the dissolution of the Empire, thus various kinds of social reforms could be introduced without hindrance. To say a few examples: Universal suffrage in Hungary, laws on language usage in the administration and bureucracy, veteran and widow benefits, increased workers' rights and protections. For sure, it would be a tumultous time period not without hardships, but it wouldn't be impossible to overcome.

The peace would probably include the loss of South Tyrol, Austrian Littoral (including Trieste) and some Dalmatian islands to Italy, Kotor to Serbia (which absorbs Montenegro), and Galicia to Poland. Probably not in the treaty, but some way or another, the Treaty of Bucharest would be nulled and Bukovina would end up in Romanian hands.

There would be reparations demanded as well, but not nearly as much as in the case of Germany, probably a third of it, primarily going to Italy and Serbia.

In such scenario, the following years would be characterised by heated debates, controversies and political crisis, but by the end of the first half of the '20s, the finally visibly improving economy would lead to consolidation.

Unlike Germany, Austria-Hungary probably wouldn't seek cooperation with Soviet Russia and would focus on restoring relations with the British and French instead. Poland would also probably be viewed more as a partner than an adversary, but to avoid displeasing the Germans too much, they would likely be kept at arm's length.

The main opponent of Austria-Hungary would be Italy, that's for sure, but Romania and Serbia would be present as threats as well. With even more meagre gains compared to OTL, I'm sure the Italians would still go down the path of fascism, and would be eager for a round 2 soon enough. I can see these three countries forming a "Little Entente" in opposition to Austria-Hungary.

If the Great Depression still hits, it would probably debut in Europe in a different manner, as the Austrian banking system wouldn't be oversized for the country, thus it might not collapse. Regardless, this probably wouldn't mean much difference outside of A-H. Within A-H however, the depression would be milder compared to OTL, since the area wouldn't be fractured into many smaller protectionist economies.

If Hitler still comes to power in Germany, A-H would gain yet another enemy to deal with in the long term, but initially the various Nazi diplomatic actions could make it easier for A-H to go against the terms of the peace treaty without drawing too much attention. Rearmament could begin.

Hitler loathed A-H and the Italians too would want to settle the score, so the Berlin-Rome Axis would make sense to come about ITTL too and probably sooner than OTL. The response ofcourse would be an Austro-Hungarian alignment with France and Poland.

Still, without the Anschluss, Munich and the Czech occupation, the Germans wouldn't be nearly as fearsome foes as OTL, and they certainly wouldn't be ready for war by 1939. On the top of that, because of the way the German economy worked, it might collapse without the spoils from Austria and Czechoslovakia if the rearmament program isn't dialed back.

Options:

a) Pressed by need, Germany prematurely goes to war and loses to France, Poland and Austria-Hungary. Italy stays out, thus it's uninvolved.

b) German economy collapses and the Nazis are overthrown by either the military or revolution. Weimar Republic is restored or military directorate established.

c) German rearmament is scaled down thus avoiding the economic collapse, possible recession.

d) Something else.


I might soon write down some other thoughts of mine, but this is it for the time being.
 
Allow me to copypaste an answer of mine from another, similar thread:

The latest POD for an A-H survival is the summer of 1918. Not launching the 2nd Piave offensive saves A-H's reserves from being completely depleted. That could provide the means both to soar up the failing Bulgarian defences on the Balkans and to resist the Italian assaults in Autumn. Like that, the Central Powers can ask for an armistice together once the Germans admit defeat too.

Once the war is over, the chance of Austria-Hungary falling apart becomes negligible. Albeit reduced in size and equipment, the army would be now free to maintain order within the country, and thus the most radical and disruptive elements could be kept down. As for the rest, political concessions would be necessary to soothe the nerves of the public, and it would be a golden opportunity to do so. The German and Hungarian nationalists, but also the higher classes in general could be kept at bay by the threat of the dissolution of the Empire, thus various kinds of social reforms could be introduced without hindrance. To say a few examples: Universal suffrage in Hungary, laws on language usage in the administration and bureucracy, veteran and widow benefits, increased workers' rights and protections. For sure, it would be a tumultous time period not without hardships, but it wouldn't be impossible to overcome.

The peace would probably include the loss of South Tyrol, Austrian Littoral (including Trieste) and some Dalmatian islands to Italy, Kotor to Serbia (which absorbs Montenegro), and Galicia to Poland. Probably not in the treaty, but some way or another, the Treaty of Bucharest would be nulled and Bukovina would end up in Romanian hands.

There would be reparations demanded as well, but not nearly as much as in the case of Germany, probably a third of it, primarily going to Italy and Serbia.

In such scenario, the following years would be characterised by heated debates, controversies and political crisis, but by the end of the first half of the '20s, the finally visibly improving economy would lead to consolidation.

Unlike Germany, Austria-Hungary probably wouldn't seek cooperation with Soviet Russia and would focus on restoring relations with the British and French instead. Poland would also probably be viewed more as a partner than an adversary, but to avoid displeasing the Germans too much, they would likely be kept at arm's length.

The main opponent of Austria-Hungary would be Italy, that's for sure, but Romania and Serbia would be present as threats as well. With even more meagre gains compared to OTL, I'm sure the Italians would still go down the path of fascism, and would be eager for a round 2 soon enough. I can see these three countries forming a "Little Entente" in opposition to Austria-Hungary.

If the Great Depression still hits, it would probably debut in Europe in a different manner, as the Austrian banking system wouldn't be oversized for the country, thus it might not collapse. Regardless, this probably wouldn't mean much difference outside of A-H. Within A-H however, the depression would be milder compared to OTL, since the area wouldn't be fractured into many smaller protectionist economies.

If Hitler still comes to power in Germany, A-H would gain yet another enemy to deal with in the long term, but initially the various Nazi diplomatic actions could make it easier for A-H to go against the terms of the peace treaty without drawing too much attention. Rearmament could begin.

Hitler loathed A-H and the Italians too would want to settle the score, so the Berlin-Rome Axis would make sense to come about ITTL too and probably sooner than OTL. The response ofcourse would be an Austro-Hungarian alignment with France and Poland.

Still, without the Anschluss, Munich and the Czech occupation, the Germans wouldn't be nearly as fearsome foes as OTL, and they certainly wouldn't be ready for war by 1939. On the top of that, because of the way the German economy worked, it might collapse without the spoils from Austria and Czechoslovakia if the rearmament program isn't dialed back.

Options:

a) Pressed by need, Germany prematurely goes to war and loses to France, Poland and Austria-Hungary. Italy stays out, thus it's uninvolved.

b) German economy collapses and the Nazis are overthrown by either the military or revolution. Weimar Republic is restored or military directorate established.

c) German rearmament is scaled down thus avoiding the economic collapse, possible recession.

d) Something else.


I might soon write down some other thoughts of mine, but this is it for the time being.
It was not a lack of soldiers or guns that doomed Austria-Hungary, but the utter collapse of its system.

To give a few examples:

1. When the Czechs proclaimed independence, the local garrison in Prague was composed mostly by ethnic Romanian troops, who didn't lift a finger
2. When the "Grand National Assembly" voted in Alba Iulia to have Transylvania unite with Romania on December 1st, it was protected by ethnic Romanian soldiers of the former Imperial Army, who had been transported by train across Hungary over the previous month by Romanian politicians without anyone bothering them for basically appropriating an army and moving it about willy-nilly
3. Ethnic Ukrainian soldiers of the Imperial Army were purposefully positioned in Lviv, and sure enough, on November 1st, those same soldiers proclaimed a new Ukrainian republic.

Austria-Hungary by late 1918 was a house of cards. It would have faced Polish, Czech, Ukrainian and Serbo-Croat revolts, plus invasions by Romania and Serbia. No way it could have hung on with such a late PoD
 
1. When the Czechs proclaimed independence, the local garrison in Prague was composed mostly by ethnic Romanian troops, who didn't lift a finger
When in Oct 28, the declaration was announced, all A-H troops had received the order to not do anything unless orders came from Vienna stating otherwise on the 21st. The Romanians did in fact want to suppress the meeting, but the local commander ordered the troops to stay quiet as per orders. No orders came from Vienna due to the fact that three days later, the empire was dissolved, and they had more pressing matters like Karoli to look at.
2. When the "Grand National Assembly" voted in Alba Iulia to have Transylvania unite with Romania on December 1st, it was protected by ethnic Romanian soldiers of the former Imperial Army, who had been transported by train across Hungary over the previous month by Romanian politicians without anyone bothering them for basically appropriating an army and moving it about willy-nilly
3. Ethnic Ukrainian soldiers of the Imperial Army were purposefully positioned in Lviv, and sure enough, on November 1st, those same soldiers proclaimed a new Ukrainian republic.
Uh.....the empire dissolved on the 31st of October. What other choice did they even have? Remain in allegiance with an empire already dead days and even months prior?
 
Last edited:
Going to link my other thread - a Better Thought out Sixtus Affair for this.

Some informative points:-
What became known as the ‘Sixtus Affair’ was of importance far less as a result of the peace feelers on which it was founded, than due to the fact of its becoming known and the consequences resulting from it. The contact between Emperor Karl and his wife’s brothers, who were to help raise attempts at taking steps towards peace at a higher level, was accordingly only a sideshow to the attempts at peace that were being made during 1917. As an affair, it belonged to 1918. The key facts and the content of the discussions and correspondence are sufficiently well-known.2146 At the end of January or in mid-February 1917 (here, the information already becomes muddled), the mother of Empress Zita, Maria Antonia von Bourbon-Parma, met with one of her sons (or both), Prince Sixtus von Bourbon-Parma (and Prince Xavier) in Neuchâtel in Switzerland. Both were officers in the Belgian Army. The Archduchess spoke of her son-in-law’s desire for peace, of which Sixtus had already been informed by the boyhood friend of Emperor Karl, Count Tamás Erdödy. However, Sixtus felt that something substantial was needed in order to set a peace initiative in motion. He wrote a list for his mother : Alsace-Lorraine, Belgium, Serbia. The Emperor was to state his position on all three points. Strangely, Italy was left out. Had Sixtus forgotten about it ? With the agreement of Count Czernin, Karl then wrote a letter on 17 March in which he gave his response to all three points, as requested, in very general terms, and also made no mention of Italy. This was no way forward, as the French President Poincaré also told Prince Sixtus. In order to be able to create a more solid foundation, Sixtus and Xavier Bourbon-Parma travelled to Vienna. They met Emperor Karl and probably also Minister Czernin, who subsequently appeared to want to forget the incident.
The next day, Sixtus was also handed a letter from Emperor Karl. (‘Mon chèr Sixte’, written in ink pencil throughout), which was probably written by Karl himself, but was without doubt signed by him. Czernin knew nothing of the letter. In this letter, which was presented as a personal communication, Sixtus was requested to assure the French President that Emperor Karl would ‘support the justified claims for restitution [by France] with regard to Alsace-Lorraine’. This was not entirely what Sixtus had been looking for, since the word ‘justified’ was open to a wide range of possible interpretations, but for the time being it had to suffice.2147 Belgium was to be reinstated and retain its African territories, Serbia was also to be preserved and possibly receive access to the sea. And again, there was no reference to Italy. This subject appears to have been addressed on another sheet of paper. At the end of March, Sixtus forwarded the letter to the French President, Poincaré. Shortly afterwards, on 19 April 1917, talks were held in St. Jean de Maurienne between the French Prime Minister Ribot, the British Prime Minister Lloyd George and the Italian Prime Minister Orlando and his Foreign Minister Sonnino.2148 Lloyd George and Poincaré knew of the Austrian venture, but did not reveal the correspondence of the Austrian Emperor to the Italians. Certainly, however, they were anxious to know whether Italy might lower the demands it had made regarding the price of peace agreed in the Treaty of London. Sonnino replied with a clear ‘no’. This would trigger a revolution in Italy. Did Orlando and Sonnino really know nothing of the fact that the Chief of the Italian General Staff, Cadorna, had indicated to Austria-Hungary just over two weeks previously, at the end of March 1917, that while Italy demanded the cession of Trentino, it was certainly prepared to lower its aspirations overall ? On 12 April, the offer was repeated and specified in Bern by an Italian colonel acting on Cadorna’s behalf : now, all that Italy wanted was Trentino and Aquilea.2149 Cadorna had apparently been acting on the orders of the Italian King. At any rate, no agreement was reached in St. Jean. Even so, Ribot requested that Prince Sixtus again contact Emperor Karl directly. This time, Italy was apparently also discussed.
The visit took place in May. Once again, both brothers came to Vienna. Who then spoke to whom and on what subject, was depicted differently in retrospect, as was the case with the first meeting. Certainly, the Emperor met with his brothers-in-law, but Sixtus also talked to the Foreign Minister. The subject of the discussions was the possibility for concrete peace negotiations. Czernin remained reserved, and finally issued only a typewritten note in which he rejected a unilateral relinquishment of territory by Austria-Hungary in the name of the Imperial and Royal government, and demanded guarantees for the integrity of the Danube Monarchy if a peace were to be concluded. However, the previous events were destined to repeat themselves. On the following day, the princes again met with the Austrian Emperor, and Karl again gave them a letter in which he ascertained that France and England clearly shared his views regarding the basis for a European peace. And when it came to Italy, the demands would have to be re-examined. The Parma princes travelled to France via Switzerland, and Sixtus again met Poincaré and Ribot, but their willingness to continue the contact had stalled.
They had clearly only been interested in finding out how far the Austrian Emperor was prepared to go. In London, where Sixtus also spoke to King George V, the desire to take the matter forward was in general greater, but it was clearly felt that there was no opportunity to do so in light of the position disclosed by Sonnino and the hesitation of the French. The contact then petered out. This was perhaps not because Emperor Karl would not have been willing to continue pursuing it, but rather because the French and British were unable to persuade the Italians with their desire to enter concrete discussions and negotiations. However, only very few people were informed about the first and second letters issued by Emperor Karl, and they chose to remain silent. It was not until almost a year later, after Brest-Litovsk and the failure of all attempts at concluding a peace in the west, and against the background of a situation in which the Imperial and Royal Foreign Minister in particular found it necessary to express a particular degree of compliance towards the German Empire and an increase in loyalty to the alliance,2150 that this brief incident was turned into a scandal. Following the relocation of troops from the east to the western front, the German Empire appeared to want to force a decisive military victory there, too. On 21 March 1918, the battle began in France that was known as ‘Operation Michael’. In this re-gard, Czernin had promoted not only the relocation of Austro-Hungarian troops to the western front, but also support for the German offensive by a renewed attack by Imperial and Royal troops in Italy, so that the Allies would be unable to easily remove their forces there in order to send them to France. Czernin did still more. He initiated a newspaper campaign against the Meinl Group and, above all, against Lammasch, in order to discredit this group, which was a source of trouble to him and to Berlin in equal measure. Finally, he threatened the Emperor with his resignation if Karl were to decide to pursue his peace contacts, while not making use of his minister.2151 Karl had indeed tried again to begin talks with the Americans, and had turned to Heinrich Lammasch for the purpose. Lammasch did what was requested of him and established the required contact. Indeed, President Wilson also reacted by making a conciliatory interpretation of his Fourteen Points, and of Point Ten in particular. Wilson was all the happier to do this, since he had been forced to acknowledge that, aside from Austria-Hungary, none of the belligerents had reacted particularly positively to his declaration of 8 January 1918. And so, the American President arranged for Austria-Hungary to also be granted extensive financial aid from the USA if a separate peace were to be concluded.2152 However, since he had not been informed of the background, Czernin could not agree with the American statements that were published. After quickly noticing that Lammasch was behind this development, he disavowed the international law expert to the Emperor. Karl was unwilling to admit his own role, and in an unseemly way had Lammasch dropped.
Lammach and Karl I actually told the Italian delegation, to which Victor Emmanuel agreed to, that Italy would be able to get Trentino, all of Gorizia and Aquilea, except Trieste.
From @LordMartinax :-
Serbia has lost over half of its male population by this point. Close to 60% of its troops have died. They are completaly occupied by the Central powers. They are in no possition to demand anything, and will be rebuilding for decades after the war, so they will not be in any possition to pick fights with Austria.

Italy meanwhile, evem though they won some victories, have completely failed in their goals of breaking through into Slovenia and were stuck in the meatgrinder that was Isonzo. With a peace that would give Italy Trentino and Gorizza, Austria would keep its well defensible borders and a future Italien incursion would most likely not be much more sucessfull.

As for Germany, I adressed that already. And after the war, Germany is going to get its millitary restrictions and not be a threat for at least a decade or two.

As for Ukraine and Poland, here Austria could actually benefit from their existence. They both would need protection from Russia (or USSR depends on what happens there) and Austria could provide it quite well. There is of course the question of Galicia, but even in OTL, there were plans for giving Galicia away in exchange for Habsburg monarchs in the countries. While this did not happen as Austria collapsed, in this timeline? Well both the candidate archdukes could speak the local languages and considering both states would be geting a large amount of land, and aid against Russia/USSR they desperatly need, I wouldn't be suprised if both accepted. So, Austria could quite easily gain teo good allies in the east, while getting rid off a problematic part of its territory.

As for the internal situation, it would be pretty good. The new emperor has just ended a brutal and unpopular war, not a surrender but a rather honorable peace, only giving up a few mountains in Italy. The damned Serbians were sufficiently punished (the Archdukes assasins are dead and Serbia is no longer a large problem), and there is frankly no reason to keep that damned land.

Karl would then actually get a chance to deal with internal problems one by one. If the German nationalists do try to rise up, it would unite the other nationalities and even much of the German population against tem (we finally stoped fighting, have peace and full food again, and you want to fight?!), especially as Croatian and Czech regiments can be quickly called in from Italy.
The Croatians, considering that independance would leave them open to an Italian attack, and that they were likely to recieve equal status to Austria would likely stay put. The Czechs have remained mostly loyal and with the possible threat of German nationalists looming over them, would be one of the main supporters of the empire. I already adressed Galicia, so lets move to the Kossúth in the room, Hungary.

I have noticed an interesting trend of "A second, but this time sucessfull, Hungarien revolt", in many timelines that I read. I frankly find it highly questionable and improbable. By 1917 the Hungarien government controlled by the land owning magnates, have managed to anger just about everyone who wasn't them. Their minorities (Romanians, Slovakians, Germans and many others) hated them for the Magyarization policy. The common peopl, by their refusal to actually let them vote (which was restricted to around 1/10 of "Hungarians"), or the fact that 90% of all land was concentrated in the magnates hands, and they refused any reforms (there are other reasons but that would get even more long). In fact, in OTL, some of the magnates were murdered right after independence. The progressives under count Karolyi took power, but failed to reform and got removed by a Communist coup few months later. So lets imagine a scenario, where Karl officially announces his plans to federalize the empire, while also hinting that he is supportive of reforms in Hungary, and the Hungarian magnates declare a revolt. Half of their army that is made out of minorities disintegrates almost immediatly, with the rest that is made out of Hungarien lower classes is likely to do the same. Meanwhile, Budapest itself likely gets some protests and leftist uprisings, with much of Hungary getting taken over by minorities, with the support of the Habsburg army. By the time the Austrian forces get to Budapest, the remaining magnates are more likely to come beging for forgiveness and aid against the red uprisings, then to fight the Imperial army.

So yeah. The outside enemies are either too bussy, not that big of a threat, or can be gained as allies. The internal situation can be handled in several years, likely with one of the Federal plans that were present pre-war. The situation will get fairly interesting by the 1930's, when Germany and Italy will be rebuild, and likely under revanchist governmants. The Romanians and perhaps Serbians will also be planning for another round, though this time perhaps in alliance with Germany. The Danubian Federation/Empire/USGA/whatever, will be against them, perhaps with allied states in the East (which would probably also mean antagonistic Russia/USSR). Fairly interesting scenario.

So yeah, this got slightly longer then I expected:). The one part I am uncertain of is the fate of Galicia. If the alliance and exchange with Poland and Ukraine does not happen, the territory is likely integrated into the new federation, though there would likely be nationalist problems there. On the other hand, Russia/USSR will likely be less antagonistic (though this is admitadly highly dependant on exact situation of it), while neither the Polish, nor Ukrainins will be capable of pressing their claims, considering the Eastern threat.
 
It was not a lack of soldiers or guns that doomed Austria-Hungary, but the utter collapse of its system.

To give a few examples:

1. When the Czechs proclaimed independence, the local garrison in Prague was composed mostly by ethnic Romanian troops, who didn't lift a finger
2. When the "Grand National Assembly" voted in Alba Iulia to have Transylvania unite with Romania on December 1st, it was protected by ethnic Romanian soldiers of the former Imperial Army, who had been transported by train across Hungary over the previous month by Romanian politicians without anyone bothering them for basically appropriating an army and moving it about willy-nilly
3. Ethnic Ukrainian soldiers of the Imperial Army were purposefully positioned in Lviv, and sure enough, on November 1st, those same soldiers proclaimed a new Ukrainian republic.

Austria-Hungary by late 1918 was a house of cards. It would have faced Polish, Czech, Ukrainian and Serbo-Croat revolts, plus invasions by Romania and Serbia. No way it could have hung on with such a late PoD
All of those things only happened however because of the faith in the country's survival vanished once the Balkan then Italian Front broke, the Hungarians demoted the union to a mere personal union and withdrew their soldiers from Italy. Without the Balkan Front collapsing none of that would had happened, and the occasional ethnic stirrings could had been kept down relatively effortlessly.
 
All of those things only happened however because of the faith in the country's survival vanished once the Balkan then Italian Front broke, the Hungarians demoted the union to a mere personal union and withdrew their soldiers from Italy. Without the Balkan Front collapsing none of that would had happened, and the occasional ethnic stirrings could had been kept down relatively effortlessly.

The nation will still need to face the consequences of the war and even if shorter and less destrutive had also bring an enourmous stress to the system, ravaged the economy and killed and maimed an entire generation, the idea that things will go as before except some little ethnic troubles because everyone was happy to be in the A-H it's a little far fetched and very optimistic.
 
The nation will still need to face the consequences of the war and even if shorter and less destrutive had also bring an enourmous stress to the system, ravaged the economy and killed and maimed an entire generation, the idea that things will go as before except some little ethnic troubles because everyone was happy to be in the A-H it's a little far fetched and very optimistic.
First and foremost it's not about being happy under A-H, but more like people favouring certainty and stability. If A-H is visibly not doomed to failure, people won't be swayed by radicalists in the same way as in OTL. With the prospect of peace and the return to normalcy, people would be much less enthusiastic to engage in a new, uncertain struggle. If the masses can be reasonably appeased, dealing with radicalists alone would be much less of a problem. Czechs can be satisfied by the official status of the Czech language in the Bohemian Crownlands. Hungarians can be kept in line with A-H being the garantuee of Hungary's safety (IOTL the failure of this on the Balkans led to the historical chain of events, after all). The aristocracy could be convinced to support social and democratic measures to get the winds out of the far-leftists sails. The Entente would be demanding democratic transformation as well, so that could further back up the establishment against internal resistances.

I find the idea that A-H would fall apart even without the army breaking and Hungarian support being withdrawn to be overly pessimistic and drawn too much from the post-war self-justifying reasoning of the successor nation states.

Now this is just my speculation, but imo A-H would even find itself to be more stable compared to Germany in the immediate years following the war.
 
Now this is just my speculation, but imo A-H would even find itself to be more stable compared to Germany in the immediate years following the war.
Even considering a succesfull Sixtus affair and an end of the war by the end of 1916 they have lost territory, men and treasure at a level unhearded from the Napoleonic war, just looking at the OTL Winner of the war to see that A-H is up for the fight of his life...and if your plan was feasible they will have done before the war and maybe it will have worked but now? After all that loss? It's hardly enough
Anything in 1918 mean that A-H is just a dead man walking, even the Emperor, his court and the goverment know that.

It's not that the war officially end, people put the uniform away, return home and the next day they go to office like nothing happened, the economy is mauled, a generation has been decimated and crippled and the enstablishment had lost a lot of legitimancy and respect, plus after years of being assigned to what can be described as 'Hell on earth' the policemen are a lot less scary...and this are the winners
 
and if your plan was feasible they will have done before the war and maybe it will have worked but now? After all that loss? It's hardly enough
What? Without the war, most of these reforms would had been blocked by the Germans, Hungarians and the aristocracy. This opportunity for reform only exists because of the war.

It's not that the war officially end, people put the uniform away, return home and the next day they go to office like nothing happened, the economy is mauled, a generation has been decimated and crippled and the enstablishment had lost a lot of legitimancy and respect, plus after years of being assigned to what can be described as 'Hell on earth' the policemen are a lot less scary...and this are the winners
And I think that is very well what would happen in A-H too. The various national and social movements however will pose not an united, but a fractured opposition to the establishment, which with clever government can be managed. Sure, it will be an enormous challenge, but A-H's existence wouldn't be at risk. Such risk is gone with the war.
 
Only if Italy still goes fascist ITTL.
Well, this victory of theirs would appear to be even more "mutilated" than it IOTL was, so I find it likely. Alternatively, the lack of success on the front could cause an alternative development strengthening the all along anti-war elements instead?
 
Top