The Perils of Neutrality: Austria and the Crimean War

Between 1853 and 1856, the Austrian Empire was forced to navigate the Crimean War. Torn between the West and Russia, Vienna opted for an uncomfortable compromise. This video aims to be a short documentary on Austrian Foreign Policy in this period.
#AustrianEmpire, #History, #CrimeanWar,

[@OldBritannia]

I hope you enjoy this short video on Austrian foreign policy in the Crimean War. Apologies that it is a bit rushed, I have quite a lot going on at the minute. I should also add that this is not a general history of the Crimean War, and the video doesn't stop to try and explain the complexities, or really even the simplicities of the wider conflict and its causes. Thus whilst I think anyone should be able to watch it, you will probably get a bit more out of it if you already have a vague idea of the period.

[@Liberater4589]

"short video" *makes video longer than several of his most popular videos*

[@jaredfry]

Didn't seem short or rushed to me. Not every complexity can or should be explained in every single video. This one struck a good tone between substance and scope.

[@moskaumaster1594]

Do you have any books you would suggest for further reading about the lead up to the crimean war?

[@marinanguish9928]

Excellent video as always. The only point mentioned that I wonder about is whether Austria would necessarily have had to liberalise had she allied with the West. I'm not sure I am convinced that the west would've taken much of an interest in Austrian affairs, and without French support for Sardinia during the Second Italian War of Independence she would likely have Austria maintained her position in Italy for awhile longer.

[@lincolntravelconcierge4846]

Great work. I only had a vague idea of the Austrian position at this time- and the amount of solid information you present in such a short video can not be understated. The particular relevance of the diplomatic personalities involved really shows the depth of your analysis. Sensational amount of information from such a short video.

[@robbsclock2675]

19th century Europe is just something else

[@emilianohermosilla3996]

Probably my favorite period of Europe

[@ebanydwayne1357]

The Best Century

[@EarthForces]

Not as bad the current era we are living in terms of realpolitik.

[@barmybarmecide5390]

@@EarthForces the current era is infused with idealism and the rejection of realpolitik from many different actors

[@donaldtrumplover2254]

@@ebanydwayne1357 not even close my man 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@luisfilipe2023]

Austrian neutrality is the biggest example that you can make the right decision and still end up with a bad outcome

[@freddysw]

No one thanks the peaceful

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

Well, although bad, it was still better than fully helping Russia.

[@leaveme3559]

@@TheAustrianAnimations87 you don't think liberating the balkans was a good idea?....could have avoided the needless wars and genocides that happened in the balkans in 1900s

[@petergilbert72]

The problem surely was that Austria was exceptionally pleased with Metternich’s Congress of Vienna and wasn’t willing to trade any part of that. It feels that they hoped that settlement would last forever. 🤞

[@victory7302]

@@TheAustrianAnimations87 ​ what do you think the issue with following bruck’s plan of dividing the balkans would’ve been?

[@nickmacarius3012]

"I don't want to talk politics! I just want to get laid!" -Young Franz Josep Very relatable 😂

[@andrei19238]

hes just like me fr

[@AFGuidesHD]

If Austria allied with Russia in the 1850s then Austria could have called upon the Russians to help out in 1866. Either by military reinforcements or political pressure on Bismarck to not start a war in the first place.

[@JCDenton3]

If they were still allied, I doubt Bismarck would have even attempted the war in the first place. He was not a gambler, he planned everything before moving the pieces.

[@dale6947]

Austria just had fingers in too many pies. They needed a consistant foreign policy and focus, did they want to control Italy, dominate Southern Germany, or compete in the Balkans? If they had committed to one they might have stood a chance.

[@stevemcgroob4446]

Hindsight is always 2020

[@thedripkingofangmar6778]

They committed to the Balkans, didn't go very well

[@dale6947]

@@thedripkingofangmar6778 Only after failing everywhere else and being weakened for it.

[@shacklock01]

I mean, Prussia sort of slapped them so hard they had to forget about being a German empire. They edged toward the Balklans as it was the only 'easy' sphere of expansion left open to them, or so they thought. Bosnia Hercegovina really was a poisoned chalice eh.

[@dale6947]

@@shacklock01 The mother of all poisoned chalices

[@realkekz]

It's a shame that the Austrian Empire is always portrayed as a backwards relic of a different era due to its failures in the Great War and the empire's subsequent collapse. Your videos on Austria have shown a light into the better parts of their history.

[@Dayvit78]

It's a shame, or it's a fact? Nothing in this video convinced me otherwise.

[@realkekz]

@@Dayvit78 t. hasn't seen Napoleonic war episodes

[@EndOfSmallSanctuary97]

Well, it certainly was "backwards" in the sense of not being nationalistic and liberal as the trend of the mid-to-late 19th century was moving towards in parts of Europe, but ultimately that's not necessarily bad if you have different values - the Austrian Empire was certainly more tolerant of ethnic and religious minorities than some of the more fervently nationalistic nation-states, that's for sure. And it didn't suffer from the same sort of disruption and chaos brought about by socialists and anarchists as occurred in France and Russia.

[@Zullyan]

@@EndOfSmallSanctuary97 Stop spouting non-sense, the Austrian Empire was definetly not "more tolerant of ethnic and religious minorities", things were so much worse for non-catholics.

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

@@Zullyan He's not spouting nonsense. Pre-1848 Austria may was autocratic, but not worse than the other great powers, and it improved more and more after 1867. The situation for Jews for example improved after Maria Theresa's death. All Jewish ghettos were abolished, no Jews were explused, they were allowed to serve as civil servants and visit universities, and they could join the army voluntarily. There were no anti-Jewish pogroms in Austria. Russia on the other hand conscripted Jewish child soldiers (as young as 9) and Jews were only allowed to live in Ukraine, Poland, Belarus and the Baltics. Ethnic minorities were still allowed to talk in their own languages (though German was the primary language) and there were non-German newspapers like the Gazzetta di Milano. Every Austrian emperor was multibilingual and spoke to his minorities with their own language in meetings. Russia and Prussia meanwhile banned and discriminated Polish language and it should be noted that in 1794 only 12% of France's population spoke French, even less than Austria with 14% German! This changed though... The Austrian Empire also never did ethnic cleansing, not even after the 1848 revolutions, like the Greek massacres in the 1820s which caused huge outrage in Europe, or Russia's Circassian genocide. Economic liberalism was gaining ground in Austria by far. The situation improved a lot after 1867 and there was freedom of religion in Bosnia for example. Everyone in Cisleithania was basically equal, no matter what. Dude, if you compare it to Russia or the Ottoman Empire, Austria was certainly better.

[@Jacob-df5hr]

As a Canadian I've always been interested in this chapter of European history but for an outsider there's simply too many names, moving pieces, unfamiliar borders, and states bursting in and out of existence for even Wikipedia to render it transparent. I love your content. It's accessible but maintains an extremely high level of quality. Great video.

[@jadger1871]

If you're using Wikipedia to learn about central European history you're going to have a bad time.... Or at least come out with a completely distorted and jaded idea of what went on.

[@Jacob-df5hr]

@@jadger1871 If I had the time and energy to excavate primary sources, I would, but I don't, which is why I'm watching amateur videos on KZbin :^)

[@generalmarkmilleyisbenedic8895]

No one cares youre canadian. No one cares you cant keep up, and wikipedia… for real?

[@wildfire9280]

You might want to watch a timelapse of European history to familiarize yourself with borders. There’s a particularly good one for Western Europe.

[@alinc3491]

Its so interesting to see the Romanian principalities, Moldova and Wallachia at the exact intersection of the three empires. The very survival of Romanian culture and language in such geopolitical circumstances is a remarkable accomplishment.

[@gigikontra7023]

That's what I keep telling my compatriots (Romanians).

[@mojewjewjew4420]

We are a nation of survivors.

[@emperornapoleon6204]

Brilliant video essay, as we have come to expect from you! Austria’s position in the long nineteenth century is fascinating, as it changed so much from Napoleon’s rise to the outbreak of WWI. It did not become global hegemon like Britain, form Germany as Prussia did, or slowly disintegrate like the Ottoman Empire. Rather, it largely maintained the same geographical position, and yet its stability relative to its competitors changed rapidly and wildly. The twilight of the Habsburgs is fascinating history, and I look forward to more videos!

[@Georgieastra]

When discussing the Crimean War two technological development should be kept in mind. The first was the electric telegraph which after many false starts had been up and running from about 1849 in much of Continental Europe. This enabled the various capitals to communicate very rapidly with each other, an extremely significant novelty and one which encouraged a great deal of micromanagement... Perhaps too much. The other is the adoption by Britain and France of the rifled musket and Minié ball. This meant that the Russians with their smooth bore flintlock muskets were considerably outranged by their opponents with dire consequences in open battle thus causing the Russians to remain behind their fortifications.

[@EndOfSmallSanctuary97]

Coincidentally I was just finishing off the remaining videos on your channel I hadn't seen yet and was wondering when a new upload would come out when I saw this and excitedly watched it. You're very quickly becoming one of my favourite history channels, and your use of good sources and actual referencing of them sets you apart from most history KZbinrs (who usually don't even bother and just read from Wikipedia). I also like the sleek, minimalist and aesthetic visuals you use and your nuanced and original takes on topics that many people dismiss simplistically. Keep up the great work!

[@hrmpug1092]

Where are the source citations sorry? I ask primarily out of genuine interest to read them myself.

[@EndOfSmallSanctuary97]

@@hrmpug1092 The source list is at the end of the video. He usually doesn't cite them during the video (unlike KZbinrs such as Military History Visualised and TIK).

[@hrmpug1092]

@@EndOfSmallSanctuary97 why not use description?

[@EndOfSmallSanctuary97]

@@hrmpug1092 I don't know, I'm not him

[@franzjosef920]

Genuinely the best channel I know of on KZbin, and criminally unrecognised to boot.

[@endless123487]

Great video showing the complexities of diplomacy. I especially like your ending, showing that surviving is an art of itself as a fragile empire in these rapidly changing times

[@almighty1419]

You are quickly becoming my favorite history KZbinr. I look forward to your future videos and hope you're channel takes off so you can start making them more often!

[@josephb7594]

Love these videos on Austria, such an overlooked nation. Would love to hear you talk about the Austro-Hungarian compromise or indeed anything else Austria related.

[@aeronlaffere]

This is great. I knew a bit about the period but hadn’t quite understood Austria’s strategy until now. What a mess!

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Thank you for highlighting the fascinating complexities for me and others!

[@nmayfield]

this is fast becoming my new favourite channel, just commenting for the algorithm!

[@bcvetkov8534]

This video was incredible. Love the work you put in as always especially on the narratives and storylines occuring during the buildup to the war itself. I would've loved to have known what Prussia (Soon to be Germany) thought of a possible Austrian entry on either side.

[@y.r._]

This channel is absolutely brilliant

[@caraouellette8605]

Love hearing about the internal politics and disagreement inherent in all these situations!

[@jackoofman2560]

As always stellar content

[@nicka1279]

Insanely good vid as usual

[@philliprandle9075]

Great topic keep them coming

[@unusualhistorian1336]

Another great video!

[@filipkopec525]

Phenomenal material

[@googlekurvaanyad4816]

Great video-as always! Will you make a Napoleonic War aims 2 video? That would be incredible

[@stev4479]

I don't must say it but you drop Always good Videos. I Love your Chanel ❤

[@aquilae1670]

It's really cool to see the forgotten parts of history in detail.

[@nightdragonx123]

God I always feel so bad the more I learn about The Austrian Empire and its downfall. I think History Civics said it best that the Hapsbergs could only maintain their empire in times of good, but being put into a rock and a hard place time and time again for over 20 years (1848-1868) AND having the SAME ruler/Monarch that entire time. Like, Jesus dude..

[@michaelnoctor1519]

Great video as ever. Do you have a reading list/recommended books for 19th century history in general? Appreciate it is a broad topic 😅

[@Gorboduc]

Checkout Eric Hobsbawm and AJP Taylor (though both have their critics). The latter has a great little series right here on KZbin called How Wars Begin.

[@OldBritannia]

Haha, yes a broad topic indeed. Europe 1815 - 1914: The Pursuit of Power by Richard Evans is alright as reference book. AJP Taylor's the Struggle for Mastery in Europe remains one of my favourite books on the period. Paul Schroeder's The Transformation of European Politics is also excellent if you can get hold of it. Then it really depends which area you are looking to study. British Foreign Policy is well covered by John Charmley's Splendid Isolation, and Paul Hayes' Modern British Foreign Policy. The Austrian Empire by Edward Crankshaw in Fall of the House of Habsburg, or Robert Kann in the Habsburg Monarchy. For Prussia Christopher Clark's Iron Kingdom is probably the best. For Italy, David Gilmour's the Pursuit of Italy. For Russia, Dominic Lieven's Towards the Flame. The best WWI focused study's are Margaret Macmillan's The War that Ended Peace, or Christopher Clark's Sleepwalkers (I disagree profoundly with the overall thesis though).

[@bobwoodward2185]

Excellent! X

[@Liberater4589]

often times i find the reasons and actions while a country or countries remain neutral in conflicts to be more interesting than what countries do in conflicts

[@napototalkrieg5092]

Thanks a lot to make some content about the Austrian empire with such quality and accuracy. With the content about Prinz Felix zu Schwarzenberg and this time with the Crimean war, I am but impatient to see other videos about the Habsburg monarchy during the XIXth century ! Why not the Chancelor Prinz Klemens von Metternich in the pre-march period ? Or maybe the "disaster" of the compromise with von Beust and the innability of acting against Prussia in the 1870s ?

[@marinusvonzilio9628]

I disagree with the idea that allying with the west would have made Franz Joseph's absolutism untenable in the long run. Case in point, the two western powers in question, France and Britain, had no qualms about allying autocratic Russia much further down the line, in 1894 and 1907, respectively. Russia for her part kept its autocracy intact until the revolution of 1905, and after that kept it de facto while paying lip service to the idea of a constitutional monarchy. Neither the revolution of 1905 nor the one in 1917 were in any significant way influenced by the fact the Russian Emperor had liberal western allies abroad. I doubt that the fate of Austria's absolutism would have been decided by the choice of allies here.

[@Anton43218]

Can you do a video about romania or the romanian principalities?

[@zekkez8057]

will you make some videos about the war aims of the main fighters of the 30 years' war ?

[@Auglet]

Wondering what maps you’re using for the videos, and if you made them I’d love to know how they were made. Thanks and love the videos 👍

[@OldBritannia]

Thank you. The maps I made myself in Photoshop. I learnt through Dr Ludwig's tutorial here on You Tube, and the style I used is just based on examples I looked at online.

[@British-monarchist.]

I love this channel so much thank you for all of these amazing videos

[@pathutchison7688]

You give good history.

[@finjames5305]

@OldBritannia What sources did you use for this? Any particular historians’ interpretations you would recommend?

[@fondertunn]

"UNDANKBAR" (i.e. "ungratefull" in german) as Nicolas I wrote on the portrait of Franz-Joseph in his cabinet. It was personal blow for him to face such position of Austria and even being treatened of war once Austria moblized its troops. He also pointed that the most silly rules through the history seems to be him and Polish king Jan Sobessky - as both were stupid (sic!) to save Austria.

[@novat9731]

It's interesting how much you can learn by studying history. Russia wants to invade. Austria brings up reason X why it is a bad idea, even though the real reason is Y. Russia is understanding, so they make sure to ease Austrian concerns over X, ignoring concern Y since it was not brought up. Austria remains neutral since concern Y was not addressed. And is subsequently seen as unreliable by the other great powers.

[@jakobheidenreich5]

1871-1918 European maps were much easier to draw 😂 lol

[@alansmithee8831]

Really enjoyable video again. When it is dog eat dog it is no fun being like the meat in the sandwich so better to play piggy in the middle. Strange Austria Hungary being neutral, but losing out while US was neutral but came out gaining.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

I am glad you are tackling Austria's tales in the 19th Century. They could have saved this if they had made a better impression on Russia while neutral or just get a Western ally, something that will cause problems later.

[@_-.-_-_.._--.-_-_----_-.--_._-]

@OldBritannia Correct me if I am wrong here, but was the Crimean War not initially egged on by Napoleon III whereby he intimidated the Ottoman's into accepting France, and therefore not Russia (as had been the case prior) to be the sole protector of all Christians in the Levant? Something about a French warship essentially violating the London Straits Convention? It was my impression that was the biggest reason Russia occupied Moldavia and Wallachia, was to pressue the Ottomans into reversing their decision.

[@alanpennie]

Oh The Russians had a case. But as usual they antagonised everyone with menacing, tactless behaviour.

[@MariusCeausu-zc7uy]

The more things change the more they stay the same​@@alanpennie

[@memofromessex]

Sorry can I just ask - What was Prussian foreign policy to Russia, the West and Crimea? Thanks!

[@jackwalters5506]

My understanding standing is that Prussia was neutral but unofficially pro Russia

[@EggmanGraz]

Prussia was thinking ahead. They wanted to isolate Austria diplomatically, so they were happy about them breaking their bond with Russia, while also blocking all attempts by Austria to present a united front against Russia and therefore not allowing Austria to move too close to the Western Powers' side either. They also made a lot of money through trade with Russia, as the Royal Navy blockaded their ports in the Baltic Sea, so they basically had to move through Prussia. Later on, they were able to fight Austria 1v1, as neither Russia nor France wanted to come to Austria's aid, mainly due to Austria's actions (or lack thereof) in the course of the Crimean War.

[@EggmanGraz]

@@genovayork2468 Austria wanted to mobilize the army of the German Federation against Russia, Prussia prevented this. They were also asked by France and Britain to intervene themselves and also rejected this.

[@EggmanGraz]

@@genovayork2468 If you think so.

[@oreo507]

would u consider making a video on the Occupation of the Ruhr?

[@OldBritannia]

I'll definitely cover it when I get round to doing some inter-war content, yes.

[@oreo507]

@@OldBritannia awesome, thanks!

[@jamesfranklin458]

something to note is that european militaries in this period were really focusing on not going balls to the wall because they could see new military technologies coming on the horizon, new steel for cannons, new propellant (guncotton). they all really wanted to see how they could build new powerful militaries in the next few decades.. this is really the beginning of the trend towards ww1.. similar to 2000s and 2010s with digitisation of the military

[@natethenoble909]

You should also look at Greece during the Crimean War- opportunities against the Ottomans, pressure from the West.

[@bones6448]

Amazing video! I was always perplexed by the Hapsburg position in the Crimean war. I had thought they should have joined Russia before but now I think joining with the west was the best option. As you said they could get guarantees for their Italian and danubian positions, and while it would have been a life or death struggle in Galicia, they would have the French and British armies with them. The conditions for war with Russia in 1854 were far preferable to the inevitable conflict 60 years later and with the power of hindsight its a conflict Austria would win as Russia was nearly bankrupt by the end of the war.. As for liberalization, the western alignment would definitely cause it, but Austria had to cede half of its territory and liberalize the remaining half 12 years later, a far worse deal then if Vienna aligned with the west and gave something akin to the 1866 December constitution of Cislenthia to its whole empire. By siding with the west Austria would have avoided 1859 and 1866, and possibly forever changed the course of history.

[@notapuma]

I personally think Joining the West would've been the most "beneficial", but I think they should've (and would've) joined Russia, Russia had helped Austria fight the French not 30 Years previously. And The Anglo-Alliance was an absolute mess throughout their war in Crimea. Turkey was a dying empire who's corpse was ripe to be ripped apart. etc. Austria could've easily divided up The Balkans with Russia, and not wasted much manpower in the process, since The Anglo Alliance had no real route to invade Austria, besides through Piedmont.

[@petergilbert72]

@@notapuma but wouldn’t colonisation of the western Balkans just have drained the empire of more resources ie a net loss overall?

[@bones6448]

@@notapuma they would turn the west against them forever and disrupt the balance of power, which is crucial for Austria. And Russia would always have more sway in the balkans then them as the video explains due to cultural and linguistic reasons. Austria could never be truly stable if it divided up the Balkans. And the Balkans wouldn't help Austria in the long run anyway, they would be a huge resource drain and no help in any conflict.

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

@@notapuma Britain and France could also use the Balkan parts of the Ottoman Empire (Serbia & Bosnia) to invade Austria as second route. the Austrian army was defeated at Solferino a few years later and I doubt much would change here. Also, the Hungarians would've likely rebelled again if you consider their hatred for Russia and Austria's disaster against Prussia in real life later on. Austria had no real gain with helping Russia.

[@davidshastitko5623]

But in the end Austria should've chosen Russia, because right after the war they became isolated by the west.

[@sidhartharoy-9i-298]

why did you private your old videos

[@micahistory]

Interesting, I never really thought of Austria's involvement - or lack of it - in the war

[@alexandrub8786]

2:50 well both could be his true aims. Constqntinople is an important city in the Orthodox faith having one of the original patriarchs of the pentarchy and since the gteat schism the one with the title of "first amongs equals" or "ecumenical".

[@z000ey]

Twas a missed opportunity to align fully with Russia (thus have Russia on its side in 1862.-3. when Prussia and Italy attacked), expand AU into Serbia (making all Serbs live in one country, thus no Gavrilo Princip shooting the Archduke), this enlargement into south Slavic lands making AU accept a triune slavic political entity much much sooner, since even the Hungarians wouldn't be able to stop 2x their population of getting political equality. With this in mind, no WW1, no WW2, much much better Europe that would evolve from AU into EU with Vienna as its hub...

[@kgius7434]

I would say the same, but just taking Bosnia , I think it would have been the better option freeing Serbia as an ally. Expanding Greece as an additional ally and neutralizing the principality as a buffer against Russia. Therefore giving up the grip on the German confederation to buy Prussia's neutrality .

[@neutronalchemist3241]

French and British would have intervened in Italy on Sardinia's side. Seen the poor dispay of the Russians on their home soil, no decisive aid was to be expected there, so Austria would have lost Lombardy, Veneto, Trentino and Friuli before it historically did. Lombardy was, with Bohemia, the most industrialised and economically advanced region of the Empire. No gain in the Balkans could replace that loss alone, figures that of Venice and the port of Trieste too. It would have been like the US losing California to have Groenland in exchange.

[@hongyiliu2467]

The compromised Austrian Neutrality had long-lasting impact, from Russian Neutrality in Austro-Prussian War, the failed League of Three Emperors and ultimately The Great War.

[@christoffellner84]

Thank you for that interesting video. Being an Austrian myself i think that the 1850ties might be one of the most thrilling periods in the history of the Habsburg Empire. As far as i know, Prince Metternich advocated for Neutrality, Count Radetzky to join Russia and Count Buol-Schaunstein to join the Allies. Franz Joseph I. did none of it, but made everyone suspicious. Personally i think, a) had Austria joined the west it could have done so only in a full blown attack-war, not by "just" binding Russian troops, ensuring that they were lacking on Crimea. b) A reform of the empire into a somewhat more constitutional and federal monarchy was unavoidable, c) this would have only been possible by giving up occupation of Hungary, restoring at least some of her pre 1848 rights and basically offering them revenge on Russia. d) France and the UK would have been in a more favorable position towards Austria in 1859.

[@christopherellis2663]

Gifted is an adjective Gave, and had given are the verbal forms. Watching from the Romanian Banat 🇷🇴

[@derpman116]

What map do you use when creating your videos?

[@OldBritannia]

I'm not quite sure what you mean? The map I use I made myself. If you're asking for the stencil I used I'm afraid I've forgotten, it was a few years ago now I used it.

[@derpman116]

@OldBritannia Ah, I thought the map you use was from the internet, sorry for the confusion

[@Brian-----]

Love your videos. The midcentury was a tough time for the Austrian Empire. The 1848 revolutions were a disaster anyway regardless of their suppression, the Crimean War was tough, the 1859 war with Piedmont hurt and the 1866 defeat by Prussia brutal. The 1867 Hungarian compromise made necessary by these serial conundra and disasters abolished Transylvania, integrating it into Hungary, and thus put the new Dual Monarchy at odds with the new Romania as would catastrophically explode in 1916 (an illusory victory over an intact neutral that hitherto had been exporting desperately needed food) and 1918. Maybe Austria would have been better off following all the way through on committing to the Danubian Principalities / Romania in a protectorate or organic alliance from the Treaty of Paris on. The logical extension of this approach then is not just forking Transylvania to Hungary in 1867 but working out some other arrangement (after all it also contained many Germans). Doing this would have physically blocked direct Russian access to the Balkans, thus stabilizing it, while helping Austria face Russia as a neighbor. In other words, maybe Romania was more important to Austria than Austria realized. By preserving Transylvania from Hungary and thus shielding its Romanians from Magyarization maybe Austria could have aimed the Romanian kingdom at Bessarabia. 🤔 🙂

[@nemanjasimic4423]

As for the Balkans, it stands out how their residents' desires were out of the equation for the Great Powers. What is deemed as a problem with Balkan "nationalism" in Western literature has a completely different, human side. Ottoman Empire's rule over the Balkans was colonial in nature and with disastrous effects. But the Greats saw only chesspieces on the board ...

[@lukaswilhelm9290]

It's hard to be in the middle, basically prepare your gun against both sides. Neutrality probably the more dangerous game than taking side.

[@internetenjoyer1044]

gonna watch later, comment for algorithm

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

I've always personally thought Austria staying neutral was a better option than helping Russia (like many people say). You know, Austria was significantly weakened after the revolutions and lost two wars in the following decades. Austria joining in the Crimean War would result in another Hungarian Revolution, a Franco-Sardinian invasion of Lombardy, an Austro-Ottoman Front, and Anglo-French naval blockade. After all, the Holy Alliance was more a coalition to stop liberal uprisings like the Hungarian Revolution than a real military alliance. However, neutrality still resulted in Austria losing all of its allies and becoming isolated (until it became allies with the new unified German Empire at least). First Russia, then the German states (which fell under Prussian influence).

[@MsOal]

8:09 Sorry for getting silly, but this interchange, and von Buol reply gave me a strong near homoerotic bromance vibe. I love 19th century etiquette.

[@alanpennie]

Buol seems to have felt protective of the young emperor. It's rather touching.

[@andreascovano7742]

Franz Joseph:" Von Buol, that Sissyussy got me acting unwise"

[@elemperadordemexico]

Based

[@stukovii7204]

All is good, yet Austria could NOT join the war on any side. If they did, what of Prussia's choice? Or the german confederation? Would we have an alternate WW1 60 years earlier? I wish you had touched more on those points. Good video tho!

[@alanpennie]

The Austrians were in part restrained by Prussian pleas not to side with The West. They had to pay some attention to what Berlin wanted.

[@thedripkingofangmar6778]

The Austrians could have achieved all their objectives while not actually choosing between russia and the West imo. They could have slowly liberalized (and federalized) and left Italy with their honor intact while partitioning the Balkans with Russia. Instead of fighting Slavic nationalism they could have championed it under the Habsburg crown, thus allowing them to control the Western balkans

[@augustosolari7721]

If they did that, they wouldnt be Austria anymore.

[@thedripkingofangmar6778]

@@augustosolari7721 austria is just an arbitrary piece of southern germany (plus Dalmatia, Czechia and Galitia) under the Habsburg crown, mantaining the crown was the main point.

[@mint8648]

By 1914 Austria was a liberal constitutional monarchy with the best minority rights of any European imperialist power

[@gigikontra7023]

​@@mint8648 wow, really? So how come Romanians (who were the majority population of Transylvania) didn't have any political representation and Romania entered the war to protect them from the abuses and the apartheid they were subjected to?

[@mint8648]

@@gigikontra7023 The ethnic Romanians in Austria-Hungary entered the war from the very beginning, with hundreds of thousands of Transylvanian and Bukovinian Romanians being mobilized throughout the war. Although most Transylvanian Romanians were loyal to the Empire, over time, reactionary sentiments emerged, especially after Romania joined the war. Many of the previously loyal soldiers decided that it was much better to risk their lives through desertion, rather than shoot their ethnical conationals. Many novels have been written on this subject, including Liviu Rebreanu's Forest of the Hanged. Romanian troops fought on all European fronts of the Dual Monarchy, some of them being distinguished, such as Oberst (Colonel) Dănilă Papp [ro], Hauptmann (Căpitan) Gheorghe Flondor and Leutnant (Locotenent) Emil Rebreanu. Other notable Romanians who fought in the Austro-Hungarian Army included Oberleutnant (Locotenent-Major) and Imperial Adviser Constantin Isopescu-Grecul, as well as Octavian Codru Tăslăuanu, who also wrote valuable memoirs about his war experience. Samoilă Mârza, a private in the Austro-Hungarian Army, reached as far as Riga and became the first Romanian war photographer. In total, up to 150,000 Romanians were killed in action while fighting as part of the Austro-Hungarian Army.[36]

[@liocla2331]

I too would rather spend my time with Elisabeth of Bavaria rather than my head of foreign policy in that situation. Easy choice really. Nah, but seriously, in my opinion Austria-Hungary had no easy way out.

[@Thoughtful7754]

"He who defends everything, defends nothing" ~ Frederick II The Great Seems like this also played out in foreign policy. Austria refused to make a decision on what it really wanted to keep, and lost both. Trying to maintain it all and overstretching their limited resources.

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

I would add it is not entirely clear is Bruck was serious about the plans to partition the Ottoman Balkans with Russia - given the fact the principality had been self-governing for decades with extremely weak Ottoman control, it is difficult to see any circumstance other than that it would have cost Austria a great deal to subjugate the principality at a time when they could scarcely afford the distraction. Indeed it is difficult to see how Serbian autonomy could have continued without provoking yet more problems with the Hungarian portion of the empire. And it should be remembered that unlike Russia, the Austrians would not have had a groundswell of Slavophil collaborators and friendly local elites to draw on in their territories in order to create effective protectorates and/or puppet states - this is one of the reasons why the Austrians so strongly encouraged the formation, once the Ottoman Balkans did finally collapse in 1913, of the anti-Slavic and anti-Russian state of Albania as a counterbalance to Serbia and Bulgaria in order to retain some (admittedly rather pitiful one and liable to be co-opted by Italy at the first opportunity) level of influence in the region against Russian hegemony. It's difficult to see Russia not eventually using any such troubles the Austrians faced in Serbia in the exact same way it had acted in Bulgaria towards the Ottoman rule there once a suitable opportunity or revolt presented itself and would have had a very decent chance of prizing Serbia from Austria and thus leaving Austria with just a rump influence over the Balkans (which is kind of where it ended up in the end anyway...). In any case his plans were somewhat vague and extempore rather than a coherent policy that sought to secure Austrian dominance of the region, it is in my opinion more likely the purpose of the proposal was part of Bruck's game to scare the Sublime Porte into making concessions to Russia regarding the Danubian provinces and thus avoid a war which in different ways both Bruck and Buol thought was critical to Austria's interests but had little means to avoid. In that sense I would disagree that Bruck was naive, rather his vision was someone narrowed both by his intense focus on Turkey - always a risk for a diplomat posted to a long-term post in a foreign capital - to the exclusion of the wider European trends and his Anglophobia. This had after all been the tactic that the great powers, and especially Austria, had used, for example, to force the Ottomans into accepting Mehmet Ali's de facto rule over Egypt in order to successfully prevent a French intervention into the empire in 1842 (and the empire's probable collapse) when the issues involved had indeed been more rigorously circumscribed to the core Ottoman territory where such a policy had less effect on the European mainland.

[@mint8648]

Bulgaria was under a pro-austrian ruler. Austria defended Serbia in Serbo-Bulgarian war

[@forthrightgambitia1032]

@@mint8648 At the period we are talking about Bulgaria had no state as such, the territory was part of the Danube vilayet. Unlike the Danubian Principalities which were proto-Romanian statelets that were autonomous principalises under the Ottoman empire suzerainty (a concept common in empires across the world before Westphalian sovereignty became the norm in 17th century Europe), or Serbia the Danube vilayet were directly ruled by the Ottoman sultan, and so in no way did they have a 'pro-Austrian ruler' at this stage, and indeed the behaviour of the population in the Russo-Turkish war showed a distinct bias to Russia. It is true that events later on, especially given they had a Germanic king, and what was seen as Russia's various favouritism towards Serbia and their betrayal in the Balkan wars pushed Bulgaria into a more pro-German and pro-Austrian direction. But this was fluid with geopolitics. The Danubian principalities from their creation in the Habsburg wars of the 18th centuries had a great deal of ties to both Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary, and many grievances with Russia (for example over Bessarabia) but events later pushed them more into the anti-Austrian camp. As for the Serbo-Bulgarian war, Austria aided Serbia because it wanted to prevent Bulgaria unifying with the province of Eastern Rumelia because it it desired the continuation of the status quo of de facto independent but small and divided nominal Ottoman territories that didn't pose threat. Again, see Austrian actions during the Balkan wars, they are entirely consistent with that. This was an entirely different set of cirmstances to mutually partitioning the Balkans (including Serbia) with Russia.

[@EidolonDragoon]

Videos like this really makes one wonder what future the Hapsburg Empire had? It seemed no matter how they played the game, their days were numbered.

[@petergilbert72]

A view well understood in Vienna as the century unfolded. Increasingly survival of the Monarchy was the empire’s only policy.

[@EidolonDragoon]

@@petergilbert72 That’s why one of the interesting things about Austria was that they were trying to create a new identity that would go over national ones and would tie to their two commonalities: the monarchy and the Catholic faith. However Hungary kept interfering and one can’t help and wonder if the plan would have worked if given time. Doubt it.

[@0kisshun0]

@@EidolonDragoon not sure what you mean hungarian interference.

[@alanpennie]

​@@EidolonDragoon Yeah. The Austrians were appealing, but doomed in the dawning age of warlike nationalism.

[@laistvan2]

All multicultural empires day was counted in 19th century....

[@kgius7434]

One of the greatest mistakes in Austria's history, isolating itself, by not supporting it's oldest ally. There was the chance of taking over Bosnia much earlier and free various other Balkan states.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

They would have lost any possession in italy before they did, and no gain in the Balkans could offset that.

[@kinggidorah6910]

​@@neutronalchemist3241they lost both anyway...

[@dumb2410]

I love your videos so much its not even funny

[@zainkhan69420]

How come Austria was unable to assimilate many of its peoples into an Austrian/common identity? France was able to do it with Brittany for example. I feel like it would have solved so many of their problems.

[@aarongodinez9022]

The people the French were assimilating were much more similar to them than the non-German peoples of Austria were to the Germans there.

[@EggmanGraz]

Brittany was a relatively small region basically locked in by France, with cultural exchange and slow integration happening over centuries. Austria, on the other hand, had only conquered most of her Balkan and eastern territories around 1700, her core population was relatively small compared to the non-Austrian peoples, plus the cultures were very different. Integration did work to some extent in the Austrian half of the later Empire, but none of the Slavic peoples were keen on learning Hungarian, the official language of the Hungarian half of the Empire. The only thing sort of keeping it all together was the Emperor.

[@vaninhhuu3215]

French type of government was much more centralized than that of Austria (Holy Roman Empire moment) hence they could enforce their identity and culture much easier than Austria (well, at that time the "Austrian identity" didn't really take shape like it does today, but much more decentralized, just like their history). The French culture was seen as more "highly regard" than the "Austrian" (more likely "German"). The "non-French" Brittany and Occitania were far weaker compared to the "non-Austrian" Slav, Hungarian, Romanian,.... Also of of Austria's (or to be more accurate, Habsburg's) gain was from marriage and diplomacy, not from conquest like France so the Austrian didn't have the position to enforce whatever they wanted. (it wasn't mean the Austrian didn't tried, but they couldn't really so they ended up making balance between different people, unlike their mirrored brother, Prussia)

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

Well, Austria kinda tried to germanize them (like making German the only primary language), but the attempt was ineffective and so everyone in the empire was allowed to speak their own language.

[@EarthForces]

The French has a more centralized form of government and they made a deliberate act of cultural imperialism in their acts of "assimilation". In Britanny, Gascony and other similar regions where people spoke the local dialect and not French as their primary language, the central government deliberately imposed the French language like how the Russians did to the Ruthenians/Ukrainians in their empire.

[@uingaeoc3905]

I have never understood why the Ottomans and Habsburgs became allies by WW1.

[@Jack-he8jv]

pretty much because everyone else wanted to carve them out at that point, its more like having common enemies than being allies. only germany had any real goals in the central powers aside from just "survive".

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

Because Russia proved to be a bigger threat (for Austria at least) than the Ottomans. Russia was the main competitor in Balkan influence.

[@marlonbryanmunoznunez3179]

"What makes an Austrian turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality? Lord Zapp Brannigan, commander of Her Majesty's Light Cavalry Brigade

[@RafeNord]

This young Franz Josef guy seems pretty level headed and willing to thread lightly, perhaps seeing that sometimes the least terrible action is doing nothing. I hope he sticks around until he is an even wiser old man. Seems like he is the right man to handle the tricky situation in the balkans for 60 years onwards after the Crimean war!

[@noobsaibot7006]

Austrian Empire already had ambitions in the Balkans did not mind the Ottoman empire collapsing so it takes the bigger share but one problem the Russian Empire also had ambitions in the Balkans most people in the Balkans are Orthodox Christian which means they will most likely align with Russia than Catholic Austria and the other problem was Slavic nationalism growing not just in the Ottoman Empire but also in the Austrian Empire. Russia was now Austria's biggest rival in the Balkans and now preferred the weakening Ottoman Empire as buffer to keep Russian ambitions in check. This snowballed into WW1.

[@fondertunn]

Thank You for the video and piece of advice of the sources to read! Just if You talk about Sevastopol in Crimea it is SevastOpol, not SevAstopol. Also it is very curious why Russian power and influence were considered as "dangerous". And why were any direct points Russian goverment provided considered as tricks or smth. Balkans suffer much because of that. If it was Austria that crushed Osman Empire and put her royal family members on the thrones of newly founded states - no one saw any problem. But if any liberation means were issued by Russia other powers always took much efforts with persistent to blame just to denonce any "Russian inflence" - even if it led to economical or dynasty or security problems in the "pro-Russian" states. For instance Romania (country raised from Danube principalities) even changed its alphabet from cyrillic into latin in 1865 - just to be "close to Europe" and "be far from Russia". Such struggle against imaginary enemy took much resources of European powers - and also granted Russian Empire the imaginary influence and power it never has in real, but that was taken into consideration. Sometimes it looks like European Don Quijote vs Russian windmill. And probably Austria felt into same illusion instead of thinking real in this conflict. Further history of Austria in 2nd half of XIX century give an idea that illusions instead of clear mind they have in politics towards Sardinia/Italy and Prussia/Germany and France as well.

[@spamspam541]

Romania didn't switch to the latin alphabet to "denounce" russian influence. Romania had close ties with russia and considered it a friend after gaining independence. The reason romanians used the cyrillic script is because old church slavonic was the language of the church. The switch to latin alphabet was done while solidifying their national identity as Romanians - a romance speaking peoples in a sea of slavs. It wasn't done because they hated russia. Also, Romania didn't go to great lengths to drop cyrillic. Rulers knew multiple languages and the intellectuals studied in the west. The upper class already spoke french since it was the lingua franca at that time so they were already familiar with the latin script. The upper class were also the only ones who really knew how to read. Romanians overall didn't use cyrillic since the vast majority were illiterate at that time. Compulsory education was only added during that time period and was not enforced until much much later. The switch was very easily done.

[@lionelsurrut4210]

We’ve all been the Austria of the friend group

[@Caroleonus]

1:02 "whilst he really wanted to be spending time with his new bride...." mate, can you blame him?

[@arti15f]

Good video overall, though it's rich to call jouint annexation of Balkans a "crime" when Britain itself ended up conquering largest empire in all of history. Compared to that, carving up Balkans would've been a minor misdemeanor at most

[@mint8648]

Example of Russian whataboutism: France takes Algeria from Turkey, and almost every year England annexes another Indian principality: none of this disturbs the balance of power; but when Russia occupies Moldavia and Wallachia, albeit only temporarily, that disturbs the balance of power. France occupies Rome and stays there several years during peacetime: that is nothing; but Russia only thinks of occupying Constantinople, and the peace of Europe is threatened. The English declare war on the Chinese, who have, it seems, offended them: no one has the right to intervene; but Russia is obliged to ask Europe for permission if it quarrels with its neighbor. England threatens Greece to support the false claims of a miserable Jew and burns its fleet: that is a lawful action; but Russia demands a treaty to protect millions of Christians, and that is deemed to strengthen its position in the East at the expense of the balance of power. We can expect nothing from the West but blind hatred and malice, which does not understand and does not want to under stand.

[@melihbacakli2825]

​@@mint8648 The Russians do the same today. The USA wants Kosovo to become an independent state. The US is intervening in Libya, killing Gaddafi. The US is invading Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of people. The Russians say to themselves, can't I do the same? They say I can't even get involved in Ukraine. Anyway, the relationship of my country (Turkey) with Russia these days is very ironic. I think the Turkish-Russian wars ended in the last century. Now consider the Eastern Europeans. :)

[@TheDarkendstar]

Well the loss of the Italian provinces ended up happening anyways the future of the Austrian empire was dire without reform. Is it not possible liberal reformism along western lines may have made it possible to survive in the long run even if in the short run it may had ran into trouble?

[@mint8648]

By 1914 Austria was a liberal constitutional monarchy with the best minority rights for any European imperialist power

[@TheDarkendstar]

@@mint8648 Yes but it was still plagued with nationalistic elements there is a reason the thought of reform into a federation was on the minds of more then a few.

[@gigikontra7023]

​​@@TheDarkendstar wait, the majority population of Transylvania were Romanians, and they were not allowed to live in cities, to have political representation, to become judges etc. That's why Romania entered WW1 in the side of the entente in the first place. History 101, really!

[@TheDarkendstar]

@@gigikontra7023 yes that’s my point the Hungarians were the main opponent to imperial reform into a more federal state as it meant they would lose power over areas they controlled but had other ethnic minorities

[@gigikontra7023]

@@TheDarkendstar the "Hungarian side" of the Austro-Hungarian empire merely had 50% of the population Hungarian-speaking. And in this category I also included Hungarian-speaking Jews. The rest were Romanians, Slovaks etc. There was no way that could last.

[@or6397]

Why was Austria Hungary dismembered after WW1? Was this because the state had resisted this up to that point or because of a change in how the state was viewed by its enemies as no longer being legitimate?

[@gigikontra7023]

There was always an extreme tension inside Austro-Hungarian empire. For example, Romanians, who were the majority population of Transylvania, were treated very badly and had no representation in the parliament. Their leaders were imprisoned when they asked for political rights. So it was just a matter of time. Things had already reached a boiling point by 1848, when again Romanians rebelled against Hungarians and Austrians. That's why Austro-Hungarian empire didn't go to war. They understood that the whole edifice would collapse under the pressure of dissatisfaction produced by war. Remember how many thousands ROMANIAN soldiers if the Austro-Hungarian empire were hanged to death 😢😢 in WW1even before Romania abandoned neutrality in 1916

[@neutronalchemist3241]

It was not dismembered "after" WWI, it was already dismembered at the end of it. IE the Austrian envoys at the signing of the armistice hid the fact that the Austrian fleet had been already ceded by Austria to the new Croatian state. The entente simply recognised the existing situation.

[@gigikontra7023]

@@neutronalchemist3241 anyway, good that Romanian troops stopped the cultural genocide of Romanians

[@or6397]

Not sure you got what I was getting at. Why did it take that long for some foreign power to support say Hungary or Bohemia becoming a separate Kingdom? Is it because that was attempted and thwarted or because nationalism became an irresistible force in later history?

[@gigikontra7023]

@@or6397 I think you're thinking in terms that are too complex. Austro-Hungarian empire was not dismantled from outside. People simply had enough. There's a well known Romanian novel speaking of a first full of trees with hanged ROMANIAN soldiers (but officially Austro-Hungarian citizens), who were killed by their superiors for not wabting to fight "hunan-wave" style. The author's brother was one of those hanged. Too much violence! Too much murder! Too much inequality! People had had enough! And the war was bringing poverty. Many Transylvanian Romanians crossed the mountains to fight under the Romanian army.

[@peterbc6129]

Austria had bad choices, and chose the bad choice. The reality was really two other choices, besides the 'neutrality'. 1 - Tie yourself to the Russians, and carve up the Balkans. This would have protected them from the Prussians and Italians for a while longer, because Russia would be obligated to repay the favour of the Crimean War. But, the finality, was that Russia would want the Slavs released and put under their 'protection', which would of led to the loss of Galicia, much of their Balkan provinces, and have left Austria vulnerable to Russian coercion. 2 - Tie yourself to the West, which would have given you likely a cheque to protect your Italian holdings, but how long would it be until the Western powers lost interest, or wanted to carve up the next 'sickman'. Russia would of aided Prussia inevitably in this case, and the remaking of Austria into a more 'liberal' system would kill the Empire. The neutrality option was the only option, in a war of bad choices, Austria could take, to secure it's own survival, but the consequences were that it died.

[@telegramsam24]

The problem was, Austria wasn't real neutral. We in Austria call the position in the crimean war "Feindselige Neutralität". A little similar to the present war in Ukraine.

[@alanpennie]

They wanted Russia to lose but not be crushed. A good idea but unworkable.

[@Notaghost603]

Wait wait, differences in race, language and religion are factors that complicate strategy and national cohesion?? when did Europe forget this little fact?

[@JoanieAdamms]

The one who remains unwilling to fight in a sea of comparable thugs, be prepared to be trounced in peace or in death...

[@sahilhossain8204]

Lore of The Perils of Neutrality: Austria and the Crimean War momentum 100

[@hoarder1919]

do you have any backing to your claim that the Danube was "Austrian main trading link to the world"? The Danube river was not fully navigable for large ships until the XX century.

[@OldBritannia]

Schroeder, Taylor, and Crankshaw all make the claim, so I’ll take their word for it.

[@hoarder1919]

@@OldBritannia none of them are economic historians so i'm not sure what their sources were. Most of Austria's industry was in the western part of the country - Vienna, Prague, Silesia etc. Most of trade would be thus conducted through either the Adriatic sea or by land with the neighbouring German realms. The Danube connected Austria to the Black sea, a remote sea far from all world economic centers. "Most of the Habsburg Empire's foreign trade was exchanged with its North-Western neighbour, Germany (Rudolph, 1976)."

[@hoarder1919]

@@OldBritannia and this is the map of european railroads in 1850: commons.princeton.edu/mg/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MG-European_Railroads_in_1850.jpg this is important because it shows that at that time it would be easier to ship goods from Prague to Trieste by rail and then to ship it, well, anywhere you want.

[@gigikontra7023]

​​​@@hoarder1919 I have to agree with you. Before the construction of the Iron Gates hydropower project by Romania and Serbia, which flooded a very difficult (rocky) portion of Danube when crossing the Carpathians, it was very difficult for navigation. My parents still remember Ada Kaleh island (which has now been flooded) and how difficult it was to get there due to rocks and strong currents.

[@hoarder1919]

@@gigikontra7023 exactly. The pictures of the Danube near the Iron Gates before the artificial flooding show how difficult it would be to conduct large-scale river trade there.

[@LucidFL]

12:10 I disagree, considering the Russian-French relationship pre-WW1 and the British-Russian relationship directly before WW1 and during it.

[@laistvan2]

On the summer of 1849 Austria needed help of Russia to overwhelm the Hungarian revolution (Franz Joseph kissed Nicolas I.-t hand, what was a big humiliating). 1853 Austria was neutral and didn't help of Russia What was happened?? Austria had depended of financial loans permanently since Ottoman wars what financed by Dutch and later English banks. So Austria could not support Russia against Britain or she could lose the next loans. She had to preserve Hungary's military occupation and that cost a lot, Kossuth still tried to gather money to invade Hungary to continue the revolution. So the best way was to be neutral but Austria alienated Russia who could help her against Prussia in 1866... At the end in 1867-68 Agreement of Austria and Hungary had been done and an official dualist Monarchy settled. But Austria lost 20 years and a plenty of wars(in Italy against French, and in Czech against Prussian)and of course money.

[@gigikontra7023]

How come everyone forgets that Romanians, the majority population of Transylvania, also revolted in 1848 against Hungarian and Austrian domination? It was the moment when Romanians of all three Principalities (Transylvania, Moldova and Wallachia) started plotting the course for a unified country (Romania)

[@laistvan2]

​@@gigikontra7023 Wallachian peasants revolted of course on Transylvania more times(1437, 1514, 1787) as peasants not as a nation. They collaborated with Habsburg and Russian troops at first, and later they tried to make alliances with Hungarians. Not only Romanians started uprising but Croatian and Serbs also(and they started massacrateing each others, Hungarians and Germans also).

[@tancreddehauteville764]

I regret the end of the Austrian Empire - it had brought stability to an unstable part of Europe. The allies were stupid to dismantle Austria at the end of WW1.

[@Jack-he8jv]

that would be the case if stability in that region was desired in the first place.

[@thanhhoangnguyen4754]

​​@@Jack-he8jv The only thing that keep them stability together was the crown and the monarch. Not the people. Even the Austrian wanted to join Germany rather than be with Hungary.

[@konradvonschnitzeldorf6506]

If the alles wouldn't have dissolved Austria, the states there would have done it themselves. The state was falling apart by the end of the war.

[@Kreenetic]

@@thanhhoangnguyen4754 That's not the case, the German National Liberal parties in Cisleithania mostly exchanged their Pan-German sentiment after the formation of the German Empire to supporting German interests within the Empire. Their goal in the past was either a untied German Republic or a Constitutional Monarchy under Austrian [Habsburg] control. Keep in mind Austrian Germans were mostly Catholic and they wouldn't have accepted the Protestant Prussian dominance within the German Empire. Furthermore, after universal male suffrage was introduced in the Austrian half of the Double Monarchy the German National Liberals never achieved an absolute majority of the German speaking vote, scoring well behind the combined votes of the Christian Social and Social Democratic party.

[@augustosolari7721]

​@@genovayork2468 imposing national borders between regions that shared the same former state, with different taxes and currencies Is not a good policy IMO. It left the agrarian regions without access to vital industry regions. You Also lose the advantage of market scale. Also dividing the terreritory generated a lot of conflicts that were later used by Nazi Germany to increase their power.

[@mostafaarmand7182]

Really want to know how the franco prussian war didn't spread

[@OldBritannia]

Interesting idea for a video, I'll add it to my list!

[@zacharyhinschberger2414]

As a huge history nerd and Austrian empire and franz Joseph history nerd, he should have entered to assist Russia in solidarity and respect for assisting with the Hungarian revolution. I know it may have been tough but it would have changed the balance of power for the combatants and strengthened Russia and austrias bond to where it could keep Prussia in check in the future. I think it could have limited Napoleon iii and made the british end the conflict due to public opinion. Opened new fronts and diverted the british, French and piedmontese troops. As long as Prussia stayed neutral I think austria would have actually come out on top. Especially because radetzky what still alive and in italy. If he supported russia, he probably could have asked for things at the peace table

[@kekiweki2774]

Great video breaking down this era. The austrian blunder in 1853 to not join the Russian army in crushing the coalition was truly one of the worst disasters of history. Had it been done, the rise of Prussian millitarism to the head of europe's strongest state wouldve been avoided, and the slavs of the balkans wouldve been unshackled of cruel ottoman hegemony much earlier.

[@TheAustrianAnimations87]

It may was a diplomatic blunder, but still the wiser decision. Full Austrian help for Russia would result in another Hungarian Revolution, a Franco-Sardinian invasion of Lombardy, an Anglo-French blockade, and so on, resulting in an earlier Habsburg collapse.

[@kekiweki2774]

@@TheAustrianAnimations87 a 2nd hungarian revolution would have been crushed easily by a russo - austrian army , and i doubt its possibility considering the hungarians were being given more rights at the time and the revolutionaries were crushed not 20 years earlier. The loss of lombardy was near inevitable anyway. Moreover, losing it during the crimean war may even help austria as they could focus their full force against the Prussian menace in 1868 rather than commiting significant armies to the pretty pointless venetian front

[@mint8648]

Did you not watch the video

[@kekiweki2774]

@@mint8648 yes perhaps old britania is right in saying the right choice in the short term was neutrality, but for austrias future abandoning their alliance with russia doomed the empire to prussian domination.

[@mint8648]

@@kekiweki2774 oh ok

[@therearenoshortcuts9868]

can't wait until you get to the current geopolitical situation: China vs US vs Russia vs India vs EU edit: lesson from this video: juggling things from a weak position is pretty difficult LOL...