[oscilsoda]

It's very hard to say. I think that it could have lasted for as long as Hungarians were in it, I don't see north or south Slavs trying for independence alone. Of course, they would have demanded greater autonomy, which would likely have been granted.

If the Hungarians decided to go independent, then all hell would break loose as Croats would definitely do the same, and others perhaps. Given that Europe was tied down in a string of alliances, every imaginable way of breaking up AH could trigger WWI, like events in Bosnia have done historically.

[dremucha]

What reasons would the Hungarians have for "divorcing" the Austrians?

[searkibia]

Mini-EU isn't a bad idea and AH was definitely slowly drifting in that direction. But in hindsight we know how strong forces of nationalism can be - they have destroyed far more homogenous countries, like Yugoslavia.

Some form of another Switzerland in central Europe under Habsburgs is imaginable, maybe consisting of parts of Austria, Slovenia, Bohemia, Germany, Italy. But the bigger entities would opt for independence sooner or later.

[jinnsamys]

most maps like that are simplifying...

are you talking about Galicia? (can't say I recognise all those names you mention). Wikipedia says it was 58.6% Polish and 40.2% Ukrainian.

edit; and I assume neither the map nor wikipedia makes a distinction between Ruthenians and Ukrainians, just consider them the same species so to say

[ddxbovMQ]

I guess I found an anti-Polish map then

[exsmoker]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
I guess I found an anti-Polish map then not quite. I guess it's simply ignorant in some issues. But truely, many western-european maps are very ignorant in this one, specific, subject and f.e. show no Poles east to Lomza and Lublin, treating even large Polish ethnic island around Vilnius, existing (though severly reduced) up till today, as Byelorussians...
That is extremly strange, as even soviet maps don't do it.

[Azzi_Kahlila]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
What reasons would the Hungarians have for "divorcing" the Austrians? None, as long as A. The dual monarchy kept full Hungarian privileges - no third crown, a Hungary that included Croatia and Slovakia, and in which limited suffrage kept Magyars dominant, and B. Hungarian autonomy within the empire, including periodic approval of army money by the Hungarian parliament, with accompanying haggling over Hungarys privileges.

The problem is that an empire like that was becoming increasingly useless to the slavic minorities, and agitation was becoming intense on that and a range of issues in the last years of empire.

[ViaplyVuple]

Kind of like the whites in southern africa..

[paydayus]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
Kind of like the whites in southern africa.. With a couple of exceptions, yes. The Rhodesians and South Africans also pushed their rule as far as it could go...

The differences mostly involve the fact that there was no systematic differentiation - the policy was of assimilation, not division. Turkish oppression in Kurdistan would be a better analogy, though at the time that kind of thing was more common and accepted.

(Another analogy, of course, would be the treatment of Hungarians in the newly-formed states after Trianon... )

[allvideO]

I don't think there was a way to save the A-H Empire. Too many ethnic groups that were unhappy at the way things were going and wanted greater say in things. Eventually it would have fallen no matter what.