Jump to content

Talk:Austria-Hungary

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 84.0.114.153 (talk) at 12:07, 27 October 2010 (→A-H Empire was not the only multinational state in 1867). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk-page subpages:

Topics from 2004-2005

Flag of Austria-Hungary

The flag shown in the article is NOT the flag of Austria-Hungary. It is the common merchant ensign (well, not entirely, two coat of arms have to be added). The Austrian-Hungarian monarchy didn't have a common national flag. Each of the two entities had their own one. There was just a common merchant, marine and war ensign (see [1] for further details) Gugganij 19:42, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We've had some confusion about the flag, so I'm glad you have helped clarify this. Do you think that the website you refer to would allow us to use their flags?
Peregrine981 20:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Fwiw, I don't know either way, but Flags of the World suggests that design was also used as a civil ensign… — OwenBlacker 21:26, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

The book Österreich-Ungarn, Die Donaumonarchie in historischen Dokumenten, Salzburg 1984. (Austria-Hungary, The Danube Monarchy in historical documents) written by Alexander Sixtus von Reden states the following (translated from German): Common flags of both states (i.e. the Danube monarchy) were the red-white-red war and naval flag with a crowned shield of arms added (in use since 1786) (example: War Ensign of 1880-1915 (Kriegsflagge)) in [2]) [...] The common merchant flag is a combination of the war flag and the Hungarian flag supplemented with the small Hungarian coat of arms (example: Merchant Ensign, 1869-1918 in [3]).

In the German language Wikipedia we had a similar discussion (de:Diskussion:Österreich-Ungarn).

Unfortunately, I don't think that we can use the flags of [4] and [5] under the GNU-FDL(see their copyright statements). Gugganij 23:54, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since the flag shown in the article is wrong, I think we should remove it. Gugganij 12:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is it o.k. when I remove the flag in 4 days? Gugganij 22:45, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll just remove it today. Peregrine981 18:15, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
I have an original old Austro-Hungarian "Marineflagge" and "Kriegsflagge" at my home. I will make a photograph of it and upload it to Wikipedia. Greetings, Andi --Andreas.poeschek 14:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Austria-Hungary (II)

As discussed above, there was no common national flag of Austria Hungary (the one shown in the box is therefore wrong). Additionally the flag shown in the box (red-white-red without any emblem) became the official flag of the Republic of Austria (1918), but was not used before. I am going to remove them within a week. Any comments? Gugganij 12:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed the flags. Gugganij 22:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone should remove this red-white-red/green flag again. As discussed various times before (for example here and on the corresponding talk page of de-wikipedia), a national flag of Austria-Hungary did simply not exist. Both Austria and Hungary had national flags on their own as correctly depicted below in the flags and heraldry section of the article. Common Flags have only existed for duties that were commonly administered by the two parts of the empire, so there have been a merchant flag and a war flag but a common national flag was not in use. --AlexF 19:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Austria Hungary (3)

I removed the "Flag" of Austria-Hungary again. This kind of flag did simply not exist. Gugganij 17:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you offer proof of that, the flag stays. Also, here's a site that claims that the Austro-Hungarian flag was in fact used: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Austria.html WhyNotFreedom 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed long ago on this talk page. --AlexF 02:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Habsburg and the flag is the official flag —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.27.64 (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Monarch?

Those two were linked by a government under a monarch wielding, in theory, absolute power, although in practice the power of the monarch was limited. The monarch’s common government was responsible for the army, navy, foreign policy, and the customs union.

How accurate is the claim that the dual monarch held absolute power? What I've read elsewhere suggested that the monarch did in fact wield absolute power as Emperor of Austria, having authority (which was exercised on occasion) to suspend constitutional government and make law as an autocrat, his powers as King of Hungary were more limited by the Diet. Shimmin 17:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by absolute power. In theory he did have the power to suspend the constitution and pass unilateral decrees. However, he almost always consulted fairly widely and respected the wishes of regional diets and politicians in both Hungary and Cisleithania because he knew that his powerbase was increasingly fragile. He wanted to ensure continued loyalty from the nationalities, many of whom saw him as their "defender" to some extent. I think that fits the bill for not using his absolute power in practice.
Peregrine981 20:42, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
HEY this is me..i like tottally agree...hwo are we so sure that we are providing the correct info???heloo..like a monarchy doesnt HAVE TO be absolute..thanx!16:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)~~dint REALLY mean to sound mean......but yea whatever..who cares..EVEN IF I DID —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.56.90.198 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]
As I was reading about Austria-Hungary it was noted that the people loved their King/Emperoer. Also, the leader of the Black Hand (the organization that organized the Archduke's assignation, for those who don't know) was also the leader of the National Serbian Military Intelligence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.250.252.101 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

National anthem

The national anthem of Austria-Hungary was not Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser. It had the same melody but different lyrics (Gott erhalte, Gott beschütze, unsern Kaiser, unser Land...). Additionally, I am not quite sure if the anthem was also the national anthem of the Hungarian part of Austria-Hungary. I try to find out. Gugganij 10:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, that's the German text of the anthem since 1854: 

   1. Gott erhalte, Gott beschütze
   Unsern Kaiser, unser Land!
   Mächtig durch des Glaubens Stütze,
   Führ' er uns mit weiser Hand!
   Laßt uns seiner Väter Krone
   Schirmen wider jeden Feind!
   |: Innig bleibt mit Habsburgs Throne
   Österreichs Geschick vereint! :|

   2. Fromm und bieder, wahr und offen
   Laßt für Recht und Pflicht uns stehn;
   Laßt, wenns gilt, mit frohem Hoffen
   Mutvoll in den Kampf uns gehn
   Eingedenk der Lorbeerreiser
   Die das Heer so oft sich wand
   |: Gut und Blut für unsern Kaiser,
   Gut und Blut fürs Vaterland! :|

   3. Was der Bürger Fleiß geschaffen
   Schütze treu des Kaisers Kraft;
   Mit des Geistes heitren Waffen
   Siege Kunst und Wissenschaft!
   Segen sei dem Land beschieden
   Und sein Ruhm dem Segen gleich;
   |: Gottes Sonne strahl' in Frieden
   Auf ein glücklich Österreich!

   4. Laßt uns fest zusammenhalten,
   In der Eintracht liegt die Macht;
   Mit vereinter Kräfte Walten
   Wird das Schwere leicht vollbracht,
   Laßt uns Eins durch Brüderbande
   Gleichem Ziel entgegengehn
   |: Heil dem Kaiser, Heil dem Lande,
   Österreich wird ewig stehn! :|

   5.An des Kaisers Seite waltet,
   Ihm verwandt durch Stamm und Sinn,
   Reich an Reiz, der nie veraltet,
   Uns're holde Kaiserin.
   Was als Glück zu höchst gepriesen
   Ström' auf sie der Himmel aus:
   |: Heil Franz Josef, Heil Elisen,
   Segen Habsburgs ganzem Haus! :|

   6.Heil auch Öst'reichs Kaisersohne,
   Froher Zukunft Unterpfand,
   Seiner Eltern Freud' und Wonne,
   Rudolf tönt's im ganzen Land,
   Unsern Kronprinz Gott behüte,
   Segne und beglücke ihn,
   |: Von der ersten Jugendblüthe
   Bis in fernste Zeiten hin. :|

Gugganij 10:39, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Austrian National Anthem's words were changed to honour each emperor in turn, though using the same tune. The original 1797 version was Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser for Franz II. After he died in 1835 the new emperor Ferdinand's anthem began "Segen Öst'reichs hohem Sohne / Unserm Kaiser Ferdinand!" ("Blessings to Austria's high son / Our Emperor Ferdinand!"). After he abdicated in 1848, the original words were reinstated for Franz Josef for a few years before the 1854 version was introduced. Apparently they never had time to rewrite the words for emperor Karl in 1916... -- Arwel 22:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There were translations in EVERY language of the Monarchy. It was the anthem of every part of the doubble monarchy. Kaiser Franz Joseph I wanted in 1854 an anthem whe can also use his succsessor. So the anthem wasen't change for Karl. I. Mayby have a look on the article in German Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.78.166.65 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many problems with this transcription. First and foremost is that it is not in English. If English is good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for this anthem. Mwahcysl (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austro-Hungarian Empire etc

I've moved the links to the term 'Austro-Hungarian Empire' to that page which I've disambiguated. People often use this terminology for the country prior to 1867. Suggestions for further link consolidation are welcome... --Joy [shallot] 00:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am glad to see the problem resolved.

Sargeras 19:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard "Austro-Hungarian Empire" for pre-1867. I've heard "Austrian Empire," "Austria", "the Habsburg Monarchy"... john k 00:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I figure it's local bias, people from areas that used to be part of the Kingdom of Hungary tend to refer to it like that because it may have been supremely Austrian but the Hungarians still had precedence/influence. Regardless, it is indicative that Transleithania was of the same size or larger than Cisleithania for at least 68 years before the Ausgleich (and after that they existed like that for 51 year). --Joy [shallot] 01:12, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Kingdom of Hungary was the Kingdom of Hungary from 1699. But that doesn't mean that "Austro-Hungarian Empire" is an appropriate term for the whole entity before 1867. john k 04:50, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You'd have to go through many of the articles to make sure the links are accurate. The article where I found this was Nikola Tesla (and Biography of Nikola Tesla), for example, where it refers to the Military Frontier as Austro-Hungarian (which is not so wrong because it wasn't part of either Cisleithania or Transleithania) in 1856. --Joy [shallot] 11:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cisleithania/Transleithania is post-1867 terminology, isn't it? And did the Military Frontier still exist in 1856? At any rate, while the Military Frontier existed, it was administratively separate from Hungary, but my understanding was that it was still considered a part of the Kingdom of Hungary. john k 19:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the timing of that terminology, I was merely trying to say that the Hungarian domain was noticably large before the creation of Austria-Hungary (indeed, that was one of the main reasons for the latter action). The Military Frontier was finally abolished only in 1881, so it had to have existed in 1856. I don't know whether the Austrians considered it part of KoH, but it was centrally administered by Austrian military leaders from Vienna, not Budapest, so I wouldn't go so far to say that it was a part of KoH. --Joy [shallot] 20:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Qertis wrote: This is absolutely ridiculous. Wikipedia should not become a collection of nonsenses.

Please go through all those links and verify that the references themselves aren't "nonsensical", too. --Joy [shallot] 20:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And just as I was beginning to think that I may just be going off on a tangent here, my watchlist came up with this diff. The paragraph explicitly talks of 18th century, and yet the term used is "Austro-Hungarian Empire". And that anon. user mistakenly linked it directly to Austria-Hungary. --Joy [shallot] 20:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, so lets fix it and don't let anon users become confused. Qertis 23:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Habsburg Monarchy

I think we ought to create an article at Habsburg Monarchy which discusses the Habsburg agglomeration as it existed between 1526 and 1918, in order to avoid both incorrect usage of Austria-Hungary and a useless link to Austria. Currently, Habsburg Monarchy redirects to Habsburg, which is a decidedly confusing article, in that it's not sure what it's about. (At the very least, all the different lists on Habsburg ought to be moved elsewhere, I think.) john k 00:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree, such an article is badly needed here. Qertis 01:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've had a go at creating it at Habsburg Monarchy. Mostly it's just trying to elaborate what the monarchy consisted of, and how it was organized. Pretty barebones. But a start, I think. john k 03:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --Joy [shallot] 09:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
On that note, I created Austro-Hungarian Army where a dozen more links were easily consolidated, and I'm still not done. --Joy [shallot] 11:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

john k and Joy, I'm reading this entry precisely because an article I was reading somewhere else, celebrating the 150th anniversary of Freud's birth, said he was born "in the Austro-Hungarian Empire on May 6, 1856", and I was thinking "er, no, that was still the *Austrian Empire*". I knew this not because I'm a historian or particularly interested in the period, but because I'm Hungarian, and 1867 is one of the twenty or so dates we usually remember from our grade school history lessons (provided we ever paid any attention at all :-)) I think it's more likely that the mix-up or extension of meaning is fairly common in non-historian circles *outside* the area (this one was an American article), but I've certainly never encountered it in Hungary. I suspect Austrians would be unlikely to make this mistake, though I imagine that the nations that were under Hungarian rule and justifiably resented this situation might not see much difference between the pre-1867 and the post-1867 period (as Joy said). Arankine 23:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Border in the maps

The correct border between Austria and Hungary crossed in the middle of the Istrian peninsula dividing it in two parts approximately equal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.211.172.86 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 26 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the drawing of the border is correct. Gugganij 22:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Map

Hmm... that map needs formatting, but I don't know how to do it. Could anyone teach me, or should I give the job to someone else? Sargeras 19:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it up. You can see instructions at Wikipedia:Images#Using_images. --Joy [shallot]

Seeing as it's a historical map, do you think it should say somewhere what the other countries on it are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.152.229 (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement drive

The article on Franz Kafka has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia: This week's improvement drive. Add your vote there if you want to support the article.--Fenice 06:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Govt. Structure correction?

I believe you need to change it from the "mid-1900's" to the early-1900's".

The disputes between the halves of the empire culminated in the mid-1900s in a prolonged constitutional crisis -- triggered by disagreement over the language of command in Hungarian army units, and deepened by the advent to power in Budapest (April 1906) of a Hungarian nationalist coalition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.174.43 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rise of naziism

twice it's suggested in this article that the power-vacuum in austria following WW1 somehow led to the rise of naziism 10 years later. Now I'm not a big history buff, but this seems a dubious claim. Hitler's ascendancy as I understand it was the result of events more or less exclusively within Germany (collapse of the mark, prolonged economic hardship, hatred of communism, resentment of jews, etc.) Is the article suggesting that a strong authority in Austria would have acted as a check on Hitler, and would not have been so easily subjugated by him?

Perhaps just the wording of the article should be changed, so it's not suggested that the Austro-hungarian dissolution led directly to Hitler's rise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.53.158.201 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well its a complicated issue. A lot of the same issues present in Germany were in Austria as well. ie. fear of Eastern Europeans, anti-semetism, instability, etc.... However, I would agree that the actual rise of the nazi party was largely a domestic German affair. What I would say needs clarification is that the destruction of Austria-Hungary as a central European power to check Germany allowed Germany to easily divide and conquer the resulting nation states. Peregrine981 00:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What I think the reference may be trying to get at is with the disappearance of Austria-Hungary, which was regarded as one of the five traditional Great Powers of Europe (the others being Britain, France, Prussia/Germany, and Russia) and its replacement with an number of more or less weak states in Eastern Europe, there was a power vacuum in Eastern Europe that left the area open for being in either German and/or Soviet zone of influence. During the inter-war period and afterwards, advocates of Realpolitik such as George F. Kennan often complained about the absence of Austria-Hungary, which in Kennan’s point of view, would served as a counter-balance to both Germany and the Soviet Union. I don’t want to get into the merits of this thesis, but a lot of people agree with it and a lot of people disagree with it.A.S. Brown 06:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added infobox

I replaced the old infobox with the standard one. The old one cluttered up the edit page with code. The red links in the infobox need to be fixed though. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable about those things (population density, etc) can fix them.--Kross | Talk 07:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox
I hope the infobox at the top of this article will be fixed. Now it is way too wide. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although it may have cluttered up the edit page I restored the old infobox. I have no problem with the new one, but when adding it please make sure that it fits in neatly. Thanxs Gugganij 23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latin as official language?

Where does the information that Latin was Austria-Hungary's offical language come from?
AFAIK, the official languages for the two halves were different. At least in Cisleithania, I am reasonably sure that laws were enacted in all major languages. Latin may have been an official language in the Hungarian half. Martg76 17:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Hungary Latin was official language until 1844. Then it was changed to Hungarian by an act http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=5255. Imre, 10 January 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.239.52 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article still shows Latin as language in Hungary in the infobox - given article only runs from 1867 and delphic statement above says until 1844 I think it should be removed - but I'll leave it to the punters here. Stevebritgimp 19:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black-yellow flag

I think we need to remove the black-yellow flag from the infobox, since it gives the impression that it was the common national flag, which is not true. Gugganij 21:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Topics from 2006

Was Austro-Hungary a multiethnic society ?

(copied here from a discussion about Franz Joseph I of Austria biography)

Austria-Hungary was not one the last European multi-national countries: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland (Germans, Belorussians, Unkrainians, Lithuanians), Switzerland, Spain (see the tensions there), Bulgaria (Turks), Germany (Poles), Soviet Union, Finland (Swedes), and so on.

Except for Switzerland and Yugoslavia, in all other cases you list there is a prevalent ethnic group that forms a national state, and other peoples are present only as minorities. The situation in Austria-Hungary was different, as there were two prevalent nationalities. StefanoC 08:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ties between Austrian and Hungarian parts were very weak and the parts were diverging. Pavel Vozenilek 09:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither it was multi-ethnic state, at least in simple understanding. It was loose federation of two and half countries (Austria, Hungay and Bosnia) where ethnic relations wildly varied from place to place. Pavel Vozenilek 22:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was multi-ethnic in the sense that integrated all minorities in a more or less homogeneous society (at least the military and the state bureaucracy was multiethnic). StefanoC 08:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've doubt about homogenity. It had modern industrial regions as well huge areas practically in medieval times. State bureaucracy (on local level) was local and /zealously/ guarded againt "foreigners". Military was the only unifying force, that's right. Pavel Vozenilek 09:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then we could agree that the defeat in WWI, and the fall of the House of Hausburg removed the only two unifying forces (the military and a common royal family) bringing on the dissolution of the composite state ? StefanoC 09:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

languages

Wouldn't it be most appropriate if we wrote Serbo-Croatian instead of Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian? --HolyRomanEmperor 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. Perhaps. The Serbs and Croats were certainly considered to be distinct ethnic groups within the Empire, but the division was much more religious than linguistic. john k 15:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Serbs and Croats were always distinct, but in their own similarities, a single nations. They were always obssessed by the idea of Pan-Slavism.
Please, bear in mind that the Serbo-Croatian language split in 1993. The Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian alternatives most certainly do not belong in the Austro-Hungary article; don't you agree?
The Croatian and Serbian languages were unified into the Serbo-Croatian language in the Habsburg's capital, Vienna, in 1850. Since Austro-Hungary's a historical state, modernism surely cannot be applied here.
Is this sufficient explaination? --HolyRomanEmperor 18:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, do what you like. Serbo-Croatian was (and is) essentially a single language, but we should also make clear that Serbian and Croatian are separate ethnic groups. john k 19:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message to User:Elephantus that reverted my edit: How come? The Bosnian language didn't exist back then, and the Serbian and Croatian weren't considered seperate. What did you mean? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian was the only official language in Croatia-Slavonia according to the Croatian-Hungarian settlement of 1868. There was a well-known riot when the Hungarian state railways attempted to put up signs in Hungarian in Croatia. :-) Bosnian was very much alive and kicking during the days of Austria-Hungary. Only in the last years of the Monarchy was it suppressed and the "Serbo-Croatian" used instead (although the language continued, of course). There was even an officially prescribed high-school grammar book "Gramatika bosanskoga jezika" (A grammar of the Bosnian language). --Elephantus 09:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, yes; I know well about the Croatian langauge - but I fail to see the Bosnian langauge. That Grammatics dates from the late 19th century - and I doubt that the Monarchy instutited the Bosnian language after 1908 (as you said, it promoted Serbo-Croatdom at the end). Why then mention the Serbian name? In Vojvodina, the Illyrian language was official - until its replacement with the Serbo-Croatian. As far as I know, the Illyrian language was forged in Croatia and Slavonia - and it was sometimes refered to as the Croatian language. It would become Serbo-Croatian as well, if I'm wrong. What wonders me is which language was official - given the 1850 Convention in Vienna, isn't it presumably logical that that language was constitutionalized on the Monarchial level (and local official languages being Croatian, Illyrian, Serbo-Croatian)? P. S. I wouldn't say that Hungarization's funny. My ancestors had a lot of trouble with it. --HolyRomanEmperor 13:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austria-Hungary in Europe.

One of the recent edits changed the title under the map in the article from "Austria–Hungary in 1913" to "Austria–Hungary in Europe". I think the "in Europe" part is absolutely unnecessary since the map shows it but it doesn't show the year. --cassini83 19:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something doesnt fit about languages in Kustenland: In the article it has been written that slovenian was the main language (37.3%) while italian is ranked second (around 34%). Yet I see in the article on Austrian Littoral that italians summed up to 237616 while slovenian were 209698.... I suspect that the data about slovenian as main language is manipulated. It is a well known slovenian claim..that at the time of the Austrian Empire Trieste belonged to Slovenia...

Contradiction in the article

The article says that capital of Dalmatia was Zadar. The map says Split. Which one's wrong? --Dijxtra 08:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1911 Britannica says Zara (Zadar), and it should know. john k 13:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zadar's webpage: [6]: "During the last century, when Habsburg ruled our countries, Zadar was the administrative centre of Dalmatia". Pavel Vozenilek 20:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any information to be included that represents popular culture? Were there any magazines? For example, in the Czech area there was Zlata Praha and Cesky Svet. There must be others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.151.21 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map reference

Since you use current names for other cities, it would be correct to list the capital of Galicia (Halychyna) as Lviv, its Ukrainian name, rather that Lemberg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tturula (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, we don't use the current names for the other cities - we have Agram, Laibach, Czernowitz, Brünn, Troppau, and so forth...speaking of the map, though, Zara, rather than Spalato, was the capital of Dalmatia. john k 02:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official name of the state

There are official names of Austria-Hungary in German and Hungarian in the table. Why there is no name in latin. Wasn't it one of the official languages of this state?--133.41.4.46 18:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin was at one point the official language of Hungary, but it had ceased to be such before 1867. john k 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: I am planning to change the name of this article to the Austro–Hungarian Empire because it was an empire and not just a 'country' like Italy, Serbia and Spain. The Austrian Empire is labelled by the title of empire and so is Germany in these times which the Austro-Hungarian Empire was like as well. Basic idea is: the Wikipedia title implies the country was more like the single ethnic group kingdoms or republics and not an empire like its predicessor the Austrian Empire or its neighbour and ally the German Empire. Feel free to comment and give feedback on the move here! Vadac (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I would like to move the article soon and I would like to do it myself! Just put a tag below whether you agree or disagree with the title change.)

Coat of Arms

you should use for Austria and Hungary the medium coat of arms, at the moment you are useing fpr Austria the small and for Hungary the medium! This is the medium coat of arms of Austria: http://images.google.at/imgres?imgurl=http://www.adler-wien.at/wDeutsch/img/heraldik/staats/gr_reichswappen.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.adler-wien.at/wDeutsch/heraldik/staats/hw_001.shtml&h=298&w=452&sz=23&hl=de&start=1&tbnid=n0FNQMmnBNscfM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmittleres%2Bwappen%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Dde%26lr%3D —195.3.113.55 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Successor states

Why is the Republic of Poland listed in the successor states? I mean, I know that it was created back then - but larger portions of territory were annexed by the Kingdom of Italy and oh-so-much the Kingdom of Romania. Why makes Poland more important? --PaxEquilibrium 13:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The heading is "New states". Poland regained independence at the time of Austria-Hungary dissolution. Romania and Italy had already existed as sovereign states before. But I agree that calling Poland a "successor state" of Austria-Hungary is not very accurate. If you can come up with a better wording, please go ahead and change it. — Kpalion(talk) 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topics from 2007

Military subtopics

Where would be a good place for military subtopics, such as the presently orphaned topic Army Slav, which was a partial solution for multi-language military units (also anyone who might know where to find more sources? I've not gotten further than what I got from the only source I know of -- the idea of such a small historical language interests me). -- Strangelv 11:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A section underneath economics on the military might be of use. john k 15:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wank and Good

Er....a little voice tells me that part of the following extract from the article is vandalism:

Alan Sked has advanced the view that, "to speak of decline and fall with regard to the Monarchy is simply misleading: it fell because it lost a major war." (The Decline and Fall of the Habsburg Empire 1815–1918)
David F. Good supports Sked's view.
Others, such as Solomon Wank, remain skeptical.

Colin4C 21:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually they're both published historians. Google 'em. DCB4W 03:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article 19

Great info on the Austro-Hungarian Empire - seems a shame we can't get the original German, or at least somehting pretty close. Anyone? Shamanjim 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A simple little question about the Lithuanian name of the country - Why is it there?

I would like to ask why it was important to have the name of the country in Lithuanian? It would be nice to get a good answer for this. Wasn't it originally ment to be written in the languages of the peoples of the Empire? Or do we want to put it out in all the languages of the world? Then why don't we have it in Kyrgyz yet (for example)? Sorry for asking, please, somebody answer, and take action too, let's be consequent. Thank you. Danke. Dziękuję. Děkuji. Dakujem. Diakuiu. Hvala. Mulţumesc. Köszönöm.

Ditto for Norwegian - was that an official language? I think not - I'll try to check the edit history... Stevebritgimp 19:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Dankon. Diolch. Tapadh leibh.[reply]

re: Successor states - for PaxEquilibrium

Such parts as Kraków belonged to the Austro Hungarian Empire. Check out the following wiki articles for explanation (or just read about them elsewhere): Kraków, Galicia, Jagellonian University (for instance...)

GA quick fail

This article does not meet the threshold for verifiability outlined under wikipedia's policies (see also WP:CITE) and necessitated for GA status, therefore I am quick-failing it. If the editors have any questions about this review, they are welcome to leave a message on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 23:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Languages In Cisleithania

Something is really fishy about this table, aside from that fact that no source is cited. For one thing, no date for the statistics is given, making them meaningless. Furthermore, I suspect that they are invented out of whole cloth; for instance, according to the chart the percentages of the most common language in Galicia and the "other language"(!), Polish and Ukrainian respectively, add up to 98.8% - never mind the fact that there were significant Yiddish, Ruthenian and German speaking populations there. I'm going to leave the chart for now, but someone should look into this. Bws2002 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topics from 2008

Common Languages In Cisleithania (II)

There is indeed something profoundly wrong in this table. The source cited appears to be the correct one, but I reckon highly unlikely that there were 43% italian speakers in Tyrol in 1910. My understanding is that there were only 3%, and that only in South Tyrol. Since this table is crucial to convey a correct insight on the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it is urgent to correct it. --Bertrandeborn (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The figures are correct. Remember that Tyrol included also Trentino in which the majority was (and is) of Italian nationality. 86.33.15.37 (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible

The second half of 'Ethnic relations' is very poorly written - eg. "and not also community" (phrasing) "From Juny 1907 (lex Apponyi)" (?) "the fourth class" (Year/Grade 4; fourth year of schooling) "although it was far less violent than the politics of the new-founded states" (what new-founded states?). Can we get it clarified by whoever wrote it? +Hexagon1 (t) 08:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms of Austria-Hungary

I was looking for explanation of Coat of Arms of Austria-Hungary, but there is no article on this subject. I would very much like to know what do individual parts mean or represent... thanx in advance --217.23.248.117 (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing structure - in need of a rewrite

The article is a confusing mix of history and state structure. As an article about a former state (and as such, different from article about a period of history for several modern countries) it should be rewritten into a state article - see Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for an example. The following sections are needed: History of Austria-Hungary, Government, Economy, Geography and Administration, and so on. I see that most of that exists in the article but is confusingly thrown around. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrofit topic year headers/subpages

07-Dec-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Afterward, I shortened auto-signature notes.
Then I added "Talk-page subpages" beside the TOC. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stacking infoboxes

07-Dec-2008: Due to narrow text, on 800x600 screens, I have widened the top text by splitting the one large FixHTML table, and stacking the infoboxes as separate tables. Somewhere in those 10 templates, a formatting error forced the infoboxes to go over-wide. In general, it is dangerous to combine all boxes as one large table, because an error in formatting can force all tables to go berserk and overtake the page, not knowing which among all 7 combined infoboxes contained the formatting error. Perhaps the error could be in those 3 omitted FixHTML templates, beyond the 7 infoboxes. Anyway, to stack floating infoboxes, create an outer infobox, as follows: 

{| class=infobox  <!--begin stacked History infoboxes-->
|{{History of Austria}}
|-<!--next row-->
|{{History of Hungary}}
|-<!--next row-->
|{{History of Croatia}}
|}<!--end stacked History infoboxes-->

Those 3 infoboxes required the outer infobox to avoid spreading the boxes across the page. However, in general, try to keep each infobox as a separate table, coding in sequence after other tables (with "class=infobox"). For more about wikitables, see: HELP:Table. Thousands of articles use tables in "{|" and "|}" MediaWiki notation. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topics from 2009

Map (2)

File:Austro-Hungary 1914.jpg contains a number of typos and inaccuracies. Switching to File:Austria-Hungary map.svg seems to be the easiest solution, or am I missing something? --Pjacobi (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History infoboxes

So if we want to give a detailed coverage then we should include all the history boxes of all the successor states. That is

History of Austria, History of Hungary, History of Czech Republic, History of Slovakia, History of Poland, History of Ukraine, History of Romania, History of Serbia, History of Bosnia Hercegovina, History of Croatia, History of Slovenia, History of Italy.

It's pretty obvious, if we did so, the whole article would be pretty jammed with history boxes. So in my view, as Austria-Hungary was a Dual Monarchy between the two states of Empire of Austria and Kingdom of Hungary (See Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867), we should only include these two to be fair.--Bizso (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rather wouldn't use any, since this one doesn't and wouldn't fit in {{History of Hungary}} and there is no reason to put a box which say "This article is a part of series on ..." when it isn't. —Admiral Norton (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks references

The page has very little references for a historic nation. I would suggest that people start attempting to verify the information within the page. Ono (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dash inconsistency

The article uses a hyphen in the text, but the title uses an en dash. Which is it? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page was moved several months ago and apparently no one has been bold since. I'd say we should go with MOS:ENDASH, because the page title implicates disjunction (Austria on one side, Hungary on the other). However, I'm not sure, since Sino-Japanese (construed in the same way as Austro-Hungarian) is advocated as an example for hyphens. —Admiral Norton (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, this is one of the fussier sides of the use of hyphens and en dashes. Several major style guides support WP's use of a hyphen where one of the two countries is represented by an abbreviated form ("Sino-Japanese War", but "Chinese–Japanese" trade); several style guides are silent on it, though. So ... "Austro-Hungarian" and "Austria–Hungary". It's not something I'd get wound up about, but it does look odd if inconsistent between title and main text. Cheers. Tony (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a general objection to the use of typography - the length of hyphens/dashes in this case - to try to convey meaning, as opposed to making text easy to read. It looks ugly and doesn't work, and one day I hope we can all use hyphens in any compound word and all these fussy rules will be forgotten. But for now, who am I to argue with the Chicago Manual of Style? Westmorlandia (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub category needed

We need {{Austria-Hungary-stub}}. We have other former country stubs ({{Ottoman-stub}}, {{Soviet-stub}}). Comments? Discuss stub creation proposal at STUBSORT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

furthest extent of empire

at what point was the empire it's lagest in size, and do we have a map of it?

User:Hobartimus

I am copying here what I have posted at the administrators page without any substantial reaction. As everybody can see, I am unable to get any (verbal, real or any other) confirmation or support against a user removing a source - the text of a law ! - and "facts" tags (i.e. towards an outright vandal, I guess). So here is the discussion, maybe someone can help, if not, then the situation of this would-be encyclopedia is much worse than anybody can imagine, because anarchies work better. Here is the copy:

I am reporting user:Hobartimus for either some kind of nationalist bias or harassment of other users. I (initially as an IP, I have created an account now) have fixed an important legal mistake in two articles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austria%E2%80%93Hungary&diff=300580727&oldid=300338411 and Kingdom of Hungary, talk:Kingdom of Hungary) and have even provided the text of the law in question, in which everybody can verify for himself that the law did not apply to Hungary. While user Hobbartimus seems to have recognized his mistake in the Kingdom of Hungary article (where the mistake was located in a footnote), he keeps reverting this in the Austria-Hungary article (where the mistake is the main text). In the Austria-Hungary article, I have also added "fact" tags, because the whole paragraph in question is IMHO nationalist POV - it should be deleted, but provision of sources would be acceptable as a last resort (so that anyone can see, who claims these things). I do not understand, why it is allowed to delete such tags, and why such tags exist then in the first place, when they can be deleted. In sum, the user exhibits a completely (or deliberately) irrational behaviour, I do not know how to deal with such people. I hope someone can help here. Thanks. Pantotenate (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try to get consensus on your side in the article talk pages, and accept whatever consensus develops there - this appears to be a textbook case of a content dispute. Collect (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I have not been clear enough: The law in question , right in its first sentence, lists the countries for which it is valid, the country called Hungary is not included there (this is a standard case for almost laws adopted in Vienna in Austria-Hungary). The user keeps reverting both this simple fact and the source - i.e. the text of the law - I have added. Where is the content dispute? What exactly am I supposed to discuss here? Whether he is able to identify the countries listed in the law text? This is vandalism. I have also addessed him on the Kingdom of Hungary talk page, where he did not react and corrected the SAME error as discussed here (because there - unlike here - it was just a footnote which nobody can see). In addition he has deleted the fact tags I have added. Is that allowed? I suppose no... A content dispute would be, if there was some issue of interpretation or ideology or competing sources, but there is definitely no such problem here. Am I supposed to cite the whole introductory sentence of the text of the law in the article or what (although that would be ridiculous)? Pantotenate (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let us see how much time it takes to get support for a simple quote of a simple, undisputed source - namely the text in question itself - or whether there will any substantial reaction this time. I do not know whether I should cry or laugh now. Pantotenate (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolution of Austria-Hungary

"Much of the military defeat of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in World War I could be put down to the fact that it could not entirely act on its own, because as part of the Dual Alliance, it was basically a military satellite state of Imperial Germany which tied its hands.[1] After having attacked Serbia, forces soon had to be withdrawn to protect its Eastern frontier against Russia's invasion, while German units were engaged in fighting on the Western Front. This unfortunate maneuver resulted in a greater loss of men in the Serbian invasion than expected.[1] Furthermore, during the course of the war it became evident that the Austrian high command had possessed no plans for a possible continental war and the army and navy were also ill-equipped to handle such a conflict.[1] Former ambassador and foreign minister Alois Count Aehrenthal assumed any future war would be in the Balkan region."

First, the whole paragraph contains questionable information. Austria Hungary became a military satellite because it was incapable to wage a modern industrial war against another Great Power(Russia), esspecially when given her impossible strategic position to fight at three fronts at the same time when she could only deal with one properly. This is also how the rest of the article represents it.

Second, this paragraph has nothing to do with its title. The Dissolution of the Austria-Hungary essentially came from the fact that she was the only remaining dynastic country in an age of nationalism. While essentially all other Great Powers were pretty homogenous entities, the only identification within the Dual Monarchy was via the monarch, not the nation. This meant that the country was not held together by common language, culture or heritage. That's a bad thing if the country you live in goes down the tubes and you don't feel any particular affiliation to it.

84.154.14.53 (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


In ww1, Austria Hungary trusted in its own and German industrial strength, due to the fact, that Orthodox countries (Russia Serbia Romania Greece) had backward agricultural economy. Don't forget the fact: The eastern front totally collapsed. Look the article of Eastern front in ww1.

Itself the industrial output of A-H empire (machinery industry chemical industry) was larger than Russian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.143.25 (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AH was industrial exporter, until Russia was industrial importer country.

I think the dissolution of Austria-Hungary essentially came from the fact that it was defeated in World War I. That defeat led to dissolution was a result of the factors you discuss, but these alone were not sufficient causes. john k (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you try to dipute the historic fact that the Eastern front of Entente was Collapsed by Central powers in ww1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category for deletion


Topics from 2010

Dashes

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Pages moved. Ucucha 15:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Austria–Hungary → Austria-Hungary — The right writing of compound placenames is with hyphen (like Bosnia-Herzegovina, Czecho-Slovakia, Winston-Salem, Brandýs nad Labem-Stará Boleslav). It is conjunction, not disjunction. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 3#Category: Austria–Hungary. ŠJů (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The incosistency of the dashes has been addressed already. However, this inconsistency has led to unnecessary links to unexistent pages. The Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 or Ausgleich link appears twice as a non-existant page since it has a dash instead of a hyphen between the words. The hyphenated version exists, however. I would believe that it would be somewhat easier for navigation to have consistency between the links. Possibly just having the word Ausgleich for the link, since it will redirect anyway to the pertinent page. Mercadoa (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The right writing is Austria-Hungary and Austro-Hungarian with "-" (hyphen). While the mutual relation between Austria and Hungary should be expressed by dash (train Austria–Hungary can go from Vienna to Budapest, Austro–Hungarian treaty is a treaty between Austria and Hungary etc., a compound name of a conurbation or a compound state should use hyphen which expresses joining (just like in Brandýs nad Labem-Stará Boleslav or Czecho-Slovakia, see also Hyphen War, or Bosnia-Herzegovina). Austro-Hungarian border is the outer border of Austria-Hungary while Austro–Hungarian border is the border between Austria and Hungary etc. --ŠJů (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 3#Category:Austria–Hungary. --ŠJů (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears from Wikipedia articles that the use of dash instead of hyphen in this compound name is a Hungarian speciality only. It can have some historical background. The article Kaiserlich und königlich alleges that Hungarian nacionalist politicians requested to use the word "und" (= and) instead of a hyphen in the phrase Kaiserlich und königlich. But even Hungarian nationalists didn't request a dash :-)
Who and why was changed the article name from Austria-Hungary to Austria–Hungary? Was the first Renata3 on 21:06, 18 September 2008? I see no discussion before it. Only a link to WP:DASH but there is talk about disjunction and no example of compound name and no conjunction. WP:DASH lists no example of a compound name with a dash similar to Austria–Hungary. Conjuction is indicated by hyphens. Compound names can be closed, hyphenated or open in English, as well as in most of other European languages. A dash is intended not for compound names but for disjunction of two independent names (words) wich don't create a new one word by such use. We can have football match Austria–Hungary (i. e. between Austria and Hungary), but not one country named Austria–Hungary.
See also
--ŠJů (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


THE ETHNIC & MINORITY RIGHTS

The first European minority rights were proclamed and enacted by the revolutionary parliament of Hungray in 1849. The second was created in Switzerland. Austria-Hungary was more liberal with its ethnic minorities than other European countries. Before the WW1, no other European coontry know the minority/ethnic rights. The German law, English law French Italian Spanish legal systems did not knew the category of minority rights in pre WW1 era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to read those rights and see a reference to it. In 1949 when the revolution was losing ground, an appeal to minorities was a last ditch effort to save Hungary. And when we consider the opinions of its leading figures (read below) it's easy to question the sincerity of those right. For one, the failure of Hungarian revolution resulted in failure to appeal to minorities. Lajos Kosuth, the leader of the revolution with Slovak roots, treated minorities with contempt. I quote: Kossuth considered himself an ethnic Hungarian and stated that there was no Slovak nationality (also: "nation," "ethnic nation," "ethnicity") in the Kingdom of Hungary. ^ "Wherever we look in Hungary, there is no entity that would constitute a Slovak nationality/nation." ("Bármerre tekintünk is Magyarországon, sehol sem látunk anyagot ily tót nemzetiségre."); A. B. [Lajos Kossuth], "Visszapillantás a szláv mozgalmakra." Pesti Hírlap, 26 June 1842. ^ "Kossuth rejected the very idea of a Slovak nation [...]."; Piotr Stefan Wandycz, The Price of Freedom: A History of East Central Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present. 2001. ^ "Though partly Slovak by birth, he [Lajos Kossuth] denied the existence of a Slovak nation [...]."; A[lan] J[ohn] P[ercivale] Taylor, From Napoleon to Lenin: Historical Essays. 1966. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Skala (talk • contribs) 12:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


As for how liberal Hungarian policy toward minority rights was: In the years 1896 and 1908 560 Slovaks were tried and sentenced for using their native tongue in governmental offices. Slovak workers in government were required to Magyarize their names. When a British historian, Seton-Watson, on his travels through Hungary 1906 asked in Pecs where he may find Slovaks, the reply was that there are a few left deep in the mountains. Clearly the tough Magyarization measures were having the desired impact of almost wiping out Slovak ethnicity, if at least on census ballot. The link to the article in Slovak press: http://spravy.pravda.sk/slovaci-dajte-si-pozor-na-scitacich-komisarov-foe-/sk_domace.asp?c=A100725_112909_sk_domace_p58 Vladimir Skala (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For better udnerstand: Skala You must read the article of the two and very different type of nationalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism , the ethnic type or "race-based" nationalism is a hotbed of nazism. The ethnic nationalism appeared in Hungary only in the 1930s. But the 1930s is not our debated era. If you study the development of Hungarian nationalism, you can see, that it (and its ideas) was constructed by the higher nobility of Hungary, who weren't Hungarians by the terms of ethnicity. The Noblemen know their complex ethnic background, because they knew well their lineage from noble-almanachs rather than the less educated/non-educated peasants and common people. Therefore their only prospect was to follow the western type so called civic nationalism which didn't based on race. In the late 1700s and early 1800s ,after and under the aegis and appear of Panslavism the local slavic nations developed their ethnic nationalism with the invention of "slavic race". It was true for Romanians who dreamed that, their ancestors were the great ancient romans instead of their shepherd nomad ancestors. It was the main difference between the Hungarian nationalism and the nationalism of some minority groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.88.254 (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


About Seton-Watson story: Pécs is a south-western Hungarian town. The population of Pécs was German Croat Serb and Hungarian. It's no wonder, that the local answerer couldn't know more about Slovaks. Ironically: it might that the answerer wasn't also an ethnic Hungarian :))))

To insinuate that the Slovak brand of nationalism was dangerous because it could lead to violent, racist regimes and to claim that Hungarian "civic" nationalism was civil, that is an insult. Minorities were fighting for their very right to exist - being denied to them by Hungary. You can pad that with as much euphemism as you desire. In the end, it's the fault of Hungarian policy that the kingdom split. Panslavism is the bogeyman that you may blame break up of Hungary on. The reality is that non-Hungarian minorities would had no reason to tear away from Hungary had they felt safe and respected in it. They clearly did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Skala (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Racist ideology & the role of Panslav factor in the outbreak of ww1

Again, the world's first race-based identity and ideology was the panslavism. Hungarians were a receptive nation (majority of the Hungarian higher aristocracy was not Hungarian by the means of ethnicity, Majority of the political and military leaders of Hungarian revolution of 1848 were not Hungarians by the terms of ethnicity, but they considered themselves as Hungarians. The slavic identity was the opposite. Slavic nations believed that they are descendants of common forefathers, they believed that they are racialy clears. Thus the race-based identities and societies were exclusionary. See: Genocides Ethnic cleanisings and forced deportations against Hungarian and German speaking populations after ww1 and ww2. However the romantic naive panslavic beliefs and myths collapsed in scientific levels (remember : population genetics of 1990s and 2000s). These false nationalist beliefs survived in less educated common people until this day.


Panslavism had the direct interest to ruin the status quo of Europe. The Black Hand society was a state-supported terror organization of the Serbian government. Panslavism and slavic nationalism had a key-role in the extension of a local conflict to a real World War. The supporter of panslavism, Tzar of Russia Nicholas II would had been the first Hitler, he started progroms genocides against Jews before ww1. It's awfull to imagine what would happend with non-slavic nations if he had won the war. However Tzarism couldn't survive the ww1. The new Soviet regime was strongly internationalist. After the WW1, the collapse and lack of a great slavic nationalist Empire (Russian Empire) prevented a large-scale new tragedy in the European continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.183.192 (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on editing out "although it was far less violent" remark and adding Rusyn

I chose to edit out the remark that stated that Magyarization under lex Aponyi was less violent than in the governments of countries with Hungarian minorities after WW1. First, there was no reference to this remark which made it sound as though it was an opinion. Second, how can one truly claim that inter-war Czechoslovakia, a democratic country, (as wrought as it was with minority issues) handled Hungarian minority in a more violent manner? The standard of living of Hungarians in Czechoslovakia was higher than in Hungary (P.R. Magocsi). Czechoslovakia respected its minorities and did not close down educational facilities and try to force minority languages out of its country.

I also added Rusyn schools, because they were by far the most targeted by Magyarizators. This was the smallest stateless minority in Hungary, so it offered the least resistance. Also, it was wrought by internal rifts where some favored a pro-Russian orientation and others a pro-Ukrainian one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Skala (talk • contribs) 10:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Czechoslovakia respected its minorities" see for example "Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia" even if you don't talk about the expulsions Estimates of casualties range between 20,000 and 270,000[5] people, depending on source.[6] meaning in Czechoslovakia there was mass murder of at the minimum tens of thousands of minorities in peacetime. I wouldn't call the mass murder of minorities "Czechoslovakia respected its minorities", also the expulsion of millions is quite minor when compared to mass murder. What do you think of this aspect? . Hobartimus (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would continue your quotation it'd state: These casualties include violent deaths and suicides, deaths in "internment camps"[6] and natural causes.[7] The joint Czech-German commission of historians stated in 1996 following numbers: The deaths caused by violence and abnormal living conditions amount approximately to 10 000 persons killed. OK, 10,000 is certainly not a small number. My opinion of Benes Decrees is that as a standalone event it is a gross violation of human rights not just minority rights. But let's take it into a larger context. A war that cost the lives of more than a 70 million people was fought on the pretext of pan-germanism. Many nations, including Czechoslovakia, were conquered. Policy of ethnic homogenization was seen as means to prevent any future conflicts and revisionism. It was the small evil used to prevent the larger one. Also, most of these deaths were of sympathizers of Hitler's regime. I caught a headline recently of (I believe it was) an international court denying reparations to Hungarians and Germans affected by Benes Decrees, that pretty much sums up the international opinion on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Skala (talk • contribs) 11:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again international court? where? Which? International Court exist only in Hague Nederland. It's lie that international court denying reparations to Hungarians and Germans affected by Benes Decrees. Dear Slovak, the policy of ethnic homogenization = Typical Nazi idea. Don't forget, Your independent Slovakia was born as a Nazi state in ww2. Stalin (who was Gregorian non-slav) using the power of panslavism killed 2X more people in peacetime than Nazis in wartime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.4 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Correction, not the international court, but the EU Court of Human rights denied reparations to Sudetenland Germans for confiscation of their property. So Dear Magyar, quit pestering the discussion with pointless references to panslavism and Nazis. Your Hungary was also a Nazi ally and tell me how did Stalin use "power" of panslavism to kill people. That is bigotry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Skala (talk • contribs) 17:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Czechoslovakia didn't like minorities, CZ. favored the idea of French style nation state of late 18th century. Czechoslovakia similar to Jugoslavia based on panslavist ideas and myths. And Don't forget, the Panslavism was the world's first racial based (RACIST) ideology. It determined the "Slavic Race", which proved a naive dream in th light of modern Y DNA and mt.DNA researches which proved that the Slavic-speaking nations are genetically very very heterogenous. The Nazi Pan-Germanism collapsed after the WW2, but the Pan-slavist ideology is virulent until this day. Slavic is language group only. But this knowledge is less known for less educated people in Slavic countries. They still believe in "slavic race". (Just read the facebook and youtube comments from slavic countries) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Hungary (present-day Slovakia) was a less developed region of Hungary with backward infrastructure. (Read old economic statistics of pre WW1 Hungary) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Present day Slovakia had about equally developed infrastructure and industry with the rest of Hungary: Seventeen percent of all Hungarian industry that had developed in Slovakia during the late 19th century also fell to the [Czechoslovak] republic. That falls on 15% of Hungarian territory. Engineering and mining industries have a long tradition in Slovakia and 19th century saw the introduction of chemical industry. In fact, I remember reading article by P.R. Magocsi that stated the very opposite (Slovakia was more industrially developed than the rest of Hungary), but I don't have the book with me, so I'm not going to use it as a reference. If you could provide those statistics, I'd be happy to peruse them.


Before WW1, the territory of present-day Slovakia had only mining industry (like Africa Asia or the third world) there weren't serious industry like the machinery industry or electric industry. Itself Budapest had more than 50% of all industry of Hungarian kingdom before the ww1. Until this day, the average wages & salaries and general infrastructure of Slovakia are lower than Hungarian. It's enough to travel to Slovakia.

Reply to the above: I teach geography and as part of the course I teach, I delve into industry and its development. Slovakia, just like the rest of the Hungarian kingdom was primarily agrarian, but comparatively it was much more industrially developed, because of its mining and metallurgy industries. To compare Slovakia to Africa is ludicrous. Bare resources were not just stripped away from Slovak mines and exported. They were processed in its burgeoning metallurgy industries. By 19th century chemical industry makes appearance along the Vah basin. I don't know the state of Hungarian infrastructure. In eastern Slovakia it's pretty bad, this also reflects the uneven development in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Skala (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


As for panslavism, to say ti is racist? It is certainly misguided, but let's figure context into it. Panslavism was borne out of repression and discrimination of Slavic minorities in German empires of Central Europe (including Balkans) and later it was used by Russia as ideological buttress for its expansion into the region. It did not promote any such ideas as racial supremacy and conquest of other (less-developed) peoples. Panslavism was never the kind of threat that pangermanism was. And don't take virtual banter too seriously. Just look at the real conflicts that Ukraine has with Russia, or past conflicts in Jugoslavia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Skala (talk • contribs) 08:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name meaning

The translation in this statement doesn't sound right: "The Monarchy bore the name internationally of "Österreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie" (on decision by Franz Joseph I in 1868), which in full meant "The Kingdoms and Lands Represented in the Imperial Council and the Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.179.192 (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. "Osterreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie" means "Austro-Hungarian Monarchy," as you might imagine. The full formal name in German was Die im Reichsrat vertretenen Königreiche und Länder und die Länder der Heiligen Ungarischen Stephanskrone. Ought to be fixed, I guess. john k (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms

Coat of Arms with Eagle was used 1867–1915, "dualistic" was used only in 1915 - 1918, thus "Eagle" was better known and longer time used. --Yopie (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No hisotry section?

Maybe its existence was too brief to merit s History section. But I am not even clear on who the emperors/kings were. Am I right that Franz Josef was the only ever sovereign of the Austro-Hungarian empire? if so, shouldn't it say so, explicitly, somewhere 9and close to the top)? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, actually - Franz Joseph's grand-nephew Karl succeeded him in 1916, and reigned for the final two years of the Dual Monarchy's existence. At any rate, much of the article concerns history in various ways, but you're right that there ought to be a more explicit section on the history - it is currently rather lacking a narrative. john k (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you don't mind my saying, I am wrong because the article only mentiones this at the bottom and in an unclear context - articles on other empires or monarchies often have lists of emperors or monarchs or at least dynasties with links to other articles. Now, am I right that the K&K had only two sovereigns? I would again say, I think this is notable enough to put in the lead especially given the brevity of poor Karl's reign. I did not make the comment to pick a fight, just to suggest what to me is an obvious area in need of improvement, although I lack the knowledge to improve it. indeed, I commented as an uninformed reader who came to the article to learn about something I know little about, and I found the article pretty confusing. There is clearly a lot of solid content here, but it is not presented in a way that (in my opinion) is friendly to a diverse audience. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wasn't criticizing you, and I have no vested interest in the article. It isn't very good. I lack the time to do much to improve it in any kind of coherent way. At any rate, yes, from 1867-1918 there were only two rulers of the Dual Monarchy. Of course, one can argue that the Ausgleich of 1867 did not represent the creation of a new state, but the creation of new constitutional arrangements in an already existing state; there were four emperors of Austria who were also kings of Hungary, but that period is dealt with in Austrian Empire, while the pre-1804 period, which saw the same territories in personal union under a monarch ruling under numerous different titles, is at Habsburg Monarchy. john k (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (I didn't think you were criticizing me). Are you satisfied that the articl is clar about this or should this content be incorporated into the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Government form

According to all real Encyclopedias : Austria-Hungary was constitutional monarchy. Absolute monarchies existed only in orthodox countries: like Balkan and Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.111.254 (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabrit03chisrich#page/2/mode/1up Austria Hungary is a constitutional Monarchy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.100.11 (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica Encyclopedia 1911

Free online contents about Austria-Hungary http://www.archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabrit03chisrich#page/2/mode/2up http://www.archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabrit03chisrich#page/2/mode/2up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.100.11 (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Austrian constitution can be read at Austrian Constitution of 1867. Hungary had for centuries an unwritten, "historical" constitution since the Golden Bull of 1222 the same way as the UK has it even today. Depending on the era, the royal power was rarely absolute. Under the Habsburgs, the permanent resurrections of the Hungarian nobility were about the stubborn opposition to the strive of the Habsburgs for centralisation in the framework of an absolute monarchy. The attitude of the Hungarian nobility was about the same to absolute monarchy as that of the Poles. In 1848, the "April laws" transformed the structure of governenance into that of a modern constitutional monarchy, which, after the era of absolutis between 1849-1860, was one of the basic elements of the Austro-Hungarian Constitutional Compromise of 1867. Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A-H Empire was not the only multinational state in 1867

Great Britain was also multinational. (Irish Scottish English etc...) The other multinational state was France. Only 50% of population of France was french. The local identities of these ethnic were stronger than french identity in 1870. These languages based on different grammar and words. They weren't closer to french than Italian or spanish language. French nationalism and forced assimilation grew the ratio of French mother tongue and identity from 50% to 91% in 1900. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.146.48 (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Russian Empire was similarly multiethnic country too.

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference B was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austria-Hungary&oldid=393191260"