Plausibility Check: An Austro-Hungarian sale of Bukovina (or at least southern Bukovina) to Romania?

WolfBear

Well-known member
Would it have ever been plausible for Austria-Hungary to sell Bukovina or at least southern Bukovina (but not Transylvania, since Hungary would never agree to that!) to Romania? This would be a good way for Austria-Hungary to get some extra money and would also help A-H improve its ties with Romania.

Austria_Hungary_ethnic.svg


Bucov.png


Southern Bukovina was Romanian-majority, so such a move could be justified on national self-determination grounds, similar to Austria giving Venetia to Italy back in 1866.

Anyway, what do you think?
 

liberty90

Evil Neoliberal Cat
Austria-Hungary was a multi-national state from definition, and to justify anything on national determination grounds is just a recipe for disaster. It's the part of the country in the same way as Prague/Bohemia (much less important, yes, but still), not a far-away colony. In 1866 they were basically forced by losing war.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Austria-Hungary was a multi-national state from definition, and to justify anything on national determination grounds is just a recipe for disaster. It's the part of the country in the same way as Prague/Bohemia (much less important, yes, but still), not a far-away colony. In 1866 they were basically forced by losing war.

What about justifying it on the grounds that the Austro-Hungarian treasury could use more money? Territorial sales were not unheard of in this time and place, after all.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
@sillygoose What do you think about this? Also, if Poland would have ever been recreated (say, due to a new, successful revolution in Russia), would A-H have then been willing to give up Galicia to Poland in exchange for Poland getting a Hapsburg king and to split Bukovina between Poland and Romania?

Also, as a side question: Do you know if Franz Ferdinand planned to restore the Transylvanian Diet (assembly) after he would have imposed universal suffrage in Hungary? I know that the Transylvanian Diet was dissolved in the late 1860s as a result of the Ausgleich, when Transylvania was made an integral part of Hungary.
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
@sillygoose What do you think about this? Also, if Poland would have ever been recreated (say, due to a new, successful revolution in Russia), would A-H have then been willing to give up Galicia to Poland in exchange for Poland getting a Hapsburg king and to split Bukovina between Poland and Romania?
Maybe if Poland would be locked into an alliance with A-H.

Also, as a side question: Do you know if Franz Ferdinand planned to restore the Transylvanian Diet (assembly) after he would have imposed universal suffrage in Hungary? I know that the Transylvanian Diet was dissolved in the late 1860s as a result of the Ausgleich, when Transylvania was made an integral part of Hungary.
I don't know, since AFAIK that issue was not really considered. FF wanted less democracy not more and if anything would want Romanians voting in Hungary to weaken the nobility politically and make them more allied to the crown as an expression of their dissatisfaction with being part of Hungary.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Maybe if Poland would be locked into an alliance with A-H.


I don't know, since AFAIK that issue was not really considered. FF wanted less democracy not more and if anything would want Romanians voting in Hungary to weaken the nobility politically and make them more allied to the crown as an expression of their dissatisfaction with being part of Hungary.

That makes sense. FWIW, Richard Ned Lebow previously suggested something like this in his book about Franz Ferdinand surviving:




In such a scenario, I would presume that Poland would be included in the Triple Alliance along with Germany, A-H, and Italy. The Triple Alliance would now become known as the Quadruple Alliance in such a scenario.

As for your second paragraph here, isn't there the option of allowing Transylvanian Romanians to vote for both their own local parliament and for the Hungarian parliament in Budapest? For instance, AFAIK, South Tyrol has its own parliament right now in real life, but South Tyrolese are also able to vote in general elections for the Italian parliament:


I'm asking about this in part because I'm wondering whether Romania might be willing to, with Franco-Russian support, sponsor a separatist uprising in Transylvania in 1917 in a no-WWI TL with the goal of getting FF to agree to restore the Transylvanian Diet. The alternative to this, of course, would be having Transylvania vote to join Romania (if this separatist uprising is actually successful, that is; if not, then it would be a moot point) and possibly an alt-WWI subsequently breaking out.

Also, in 1917 in a no-WWI TL, if A-H is in a state of civil war, is there any chance of the Bosnian Diet (Landtag/parliament) voting to join Serbia and inviting Serbian troops to enter Bosnia in order to allow the wishes of the Bosnian peoples to be realized and fulfilled? This would of course spark a war with A-H, but still, seems like the best chance in a while that Serbia is going to get to grab Bosnia for itself.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
@sillygoose Also, two additional questions:

1. Would A-H ever be willing to seriously consider outright annexing an independent Poland (with or without WWI) if the Poles themselves will genuinely want this?

2. Why is Transylvania currently the most developed region in Romania even right now, over a century after the end of WWI?



Here's another map, but this one also shows Bukovina as being highly developed, which the map above does not:

69a0a5d9638625f89330f339c140ab09c01d2d1f.jpg


In the former Romanian Old Kingdom territories, the main developed parts are Bucharest, Iasi, Constanta, and some of the territories near the old Romanian border with A-H, such as Targu Jiu and Ploesti.
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
IIRC it had been proposed, but was thought to be unworkable given that the double monarchy was already falling apart. Adding a third crown was not an option anyone took seriously.

Good question on Transylvania, I think it might be the terrain and population concentration facilitating economic development.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
IIRC it had been proposed, but was thought to be unworkable given that the double monarchy was already falling apart. Adding a third crown was not an option anyone took seriously.

Good question on Transylvania, I think it might be the terrain and population concentration facilitating economic development.

In that case, it seems most prudent to just give up on Galicia and either give all of it to Poland (if no independent Ukraine) or to split it between Poland and Ukraine (if there is an independent Ukraine). Bukovina can be split between Poland/Ukraine and Romania. FWIW, Galicia (and Bukovina) were viewed as an unnatural part of A-H even before 1918 in some quarters:


Austria, as distinguished from Hungary, consists of seventeen provinces,
of which Galicia is the largest and most populous; yet there are many
Austrians who have long regarded its possession as anything but an unmixed
blessing for the Monarchy as a whole, and would scarcely regret its loss.
It has always occupied a peculiar autonomous position of its own; its
political, social, and economic conditions are at least a century behind
those of the neighbouring provinces, and have given rise to many gross
scandals. It has been a hot-bed of agrarian unrest, electoral corruption,
and international espionage. Instead of paying its own way, it has been
financially a heavy drag upon the State, while racially it provides, in the
Polish-Ruthene conflict, an object-lesson on the disagreeable fact that
an oppressed race can become an oppressor when occasion arises. But the
argument which weighs most with the Germans of Austria is that the Poles
of Galicia have for a whole generation held in their hands the political
balance in the Austrian Parliament, and that the disappearance of
the Polish and Ruthene deputies would destroy the Slav majority and
correspondingly strengthen the Germans. The Magyars in their turn would no
doubt view with some alarm the extension of the Russian frontier to the
line of the Carpathians; but the change would bring to them certain obvious
compensations, since it would greatly increase the relative importance of
Hungary inside what was left of the Habsburg Monarchy. In short, it is
by no means impossible that if the Russians succeed in holding Galicia,
Austria-Hungary may show a sudden alacrity to buy peace by disgorging a
province which has never wholly fitted into her geographical or political
system.

It is obvious that the fate of the small province of Bukovina is bound up
with that of Galicia; and in such circumstances as we have just indicated,
it would doubtless be divided between Russia and Roumania on broad
ethnographical lines, the northern districts being Ruthene, the southern
Roumanian. This, however, must depend upon the attitude of the kingdom of
Roumania, to which reference will be made later.

(This author, R. W. Seton-Watson, was actually quite sympathetic to A-H before WWI.)

Interesting. I was wondering if it was the A-H economic and industrial legacy, but then was also wondering why this was not as clearly reflected in Bukovina as well.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
BTW, @sillygoose, was the logic behind the Polish Border Strip to isolate Posen Province's Poles from their Polish brethren in Poland?





Poland would have been reduced to a real rump state in the absence of this strip, perhaps even almost to the point of it being made non-viable as a state. Almost. Poland avoided a very sad fate as a result of the Entente's victory in WWI, only to suffer a sad fate in WWII as a result of the Entente's subsequent unwillingness to enforce Versailles early enough in the 1930s.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
@sillygoose Do you think that if Russia ever reforms and becomes much more liberal and democratic without WWI, Austria-Hungary would ever actually be willing to sell Galicia to Russia?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Also, @sillygoose, would an Austria-Hungary that wins WWI ever be willing to seriously consider splitting Galicia between Poland and Ukraine and also splitting Bukovina between Ukraine and Romania?
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
Also, @sillygoose, would an Austria-Hungary that wins WWI ever be willing to seriously consider splitting Galicia between Poland and Ukraine and also splitting Bukovina between Ukraine and Romania?
Maybe, but the former would require a Habsburg monarch in Poland. Galicia would most likely though go entirely to Poland, not be split given Polish ambitions. Bukowina if it was allowed to go at all would go entirely to Romania. There was no Ukraine really at the time to give it to.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Maybe, but the former would require a Habsburg monarch in Poland. Galicia would most likely though go entirely to Poland, not be split given Polish ambitions. Bukowina if it was allowed to go at all would go entirely to Romania. There was no Ukraine really at the time to give it to.

There was a Ukrainian state in 1918, no?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
A puppet state IIRC.

Yes, but why exactly should that matter? A puppet state is just as good as any other one, no? Or are you saying that Poland's loyalty would be less secure and that thus Poland would be more in need of a territorial gift from A-H than Ukraine would be?
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
Yes, but why exactly should that matter? A puppet state is just as good as any other one, no? Or are you saying that Poland's loyalty would be less secure and that thus Poland would be more in need of a territorial gift from A-H than Ukraine would be?
It really didn't exist as a state, it was propped up by German and Austrian military units and collapsed nearly as soon as they left. Poland tried to make one too, but that fell apart as they were defeated in their Kiev offensive in 1919. Puppet states are only as good as the people are invested in them. So Ukraine getting any of Galicia would be pointless and Poland wanted all of it. Better to having the more useful and powerful Poland onside than a tottering Ukraine that would fall apart without immense support.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
It really didn't exist as a state, it was propped up by German and Austrian military units and collapsed nearly as soon as they left. Poland tried to make one too, but that fell apart as they were defeated in their Kiev offensive in 1919. Puppet states are only as good as the people are invested in them. So Ukraine getting any of Galicia would be pointless and Poland wanted all of it. Better to having the more useful and powerful Poland onside than a tottering Ukraine that would fall apart without immense support.

The Kiev Offensive was in 1920, not in 1919.

And it's quite interesting that Ukraine nowadays is much more resilient than it was a century ago.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top