Was Austria-Hungary really "doomed to fail", as orthodox historians keep claiming?
>good military performance against the Italians, for a traditionally non-military power
>better than literally everything that replaced it
I think that if Austria-Hungary were forced to just make a few concessions instead of being completely dissolved, such as releasing Bosnia, Serbia, and it's Romanian and Polish territories, it could have survived until today. Remember that the same left-wing historians that dismiss Austria-Hungary's existence as backwards and "doomed to fail due to multiculturalism" will 9 times out of 10 defend things like the the EU. Winston Churchill even regretted not having the Hapsburg lands around anymore.
My point was that left-wing historians will trash Austria-Hungary in retrospect (which is a very easy thing to do) as being "backward" due to it's multicultural, pan-european nature. These same characteristics are being resold to us again today as being "the future".
My feelings are that if Austria-Hungary stayed together in some form it would have developed a group identity in the face of the Soviet and German threats. For instance today the Czechs, Slovaks, Austrians, Hungarians, and Slovenes pretty much make up the entirety of anti-migrant opposition in Europe. Not to bring up current events but it is clear that they do share more than they are sometimes given credit for.
>due to it's multicultural, pan-european nature
Again, problem wasn't multiculturalism, but treating its cultures unevenly.
>For instance today the Czechs, Slovaks, Austrians, Hungarians, and Slovenes pretty much make up the entirety of anti-migrant opposition in Europe
They voted for mandatory immigrant quotas recently. The only ones voting against were Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia and Romania.
Good thread OP!
Actually, recent(ish) work shows that A-H was not 'inevitable failure' or anything of the sort. That line of thought is pretty much a lazy cop out which was sadly perpetuated by postwar histories - which viewed the issue with newly found nationalism tinted glasses.
Most of the internal problems were often dealt with satisfactorily enough, and above all few members of the empire called for an actual end to it.
Even someone like the Czechs, upset at not having the same position as the Hungarians, did not want out. They just wanted 'up', a degree of autonomy, greater representation etc.
John Deak writes about this exact phenomenon.
>My feelings are that if Austria-Hungary stayed together in some form it would have developed a group identity in the face of the Soviet and German threats
That would have required federalization of A-H though. You can't have Austrian and Hungarian monarchs sit on top of the command chain and expect all those minorities to just go along with it.
A-H would have needed to give the major ethnicities their own autonomy like the Hungarians, to make them willing to work together with the rest of the union
Austria-Hungary showed an absolute willingness to reform. They even attempted to do so and give autonomy to the nationalities before Wilson took their continued existence off the table.
He was a complete snake.
>We just want to remove German influence from the Hapsburg lands!
>We just want to give autonomy to the lesser nationalities living within the empire!
>Sorry, the continued existence of the Empire is now out of the question.
I always thought that the treatment of the Czechs was ridiculous. I have an extremely hard time believing that the allied-supported independence movements that broke up the Empire had any where near majority support from the population. Unfortunately we will likely never see full figures on that though.
I will check out Deak.
On the other hand they completely shat on any pleads for autonomy before the war. Just suddenly after it, when they lost, they were all for it.
Also majority of the Czech population was affected by the propaganda at the end of the war so the urge for new nation was pretty high.
No, almost all nationalities after the death of Franz Joseph, not just the Austro-Hungarian compromise of the 1860s.
Hate to bring out Wikipedia, but:
>"On 14 October 1918, Foreign Minister Baron István Burián von Rajecz asked for an armistice based on the Fourteen Points. In an apparent attempt to demonstrate good faith, Charles issued a proclamation ("Imperial Manifesto of 16 October 1918") two days later which would have significantly altered the structure of the Austrian half of the monarchy. The Polish majority regions of Galicia and Lodomeria were to be granted the option of seceding from the empire, and it was understood that they would join their ethnic brethren in Russia and Germany in resurrecting a Polish state. The rest of Cisleithania was transformed into a federal union composed of four parts—German, Czech, South Slav and Ukrainian. Each of these was to be governed by a national council that would negotiate the future of the empire with Vienna, and Trieste was to receive a special status."
There was definitely a willingness to modernize, but the French and Americans were hell-bent on a total partition by then.
That can mostly be blamed on Franz Joseph. As great as he was he did not budge on these issues, even when it was absolutely imperative for the empire's survival that he did. Franz Ferdinand, for example, would definitely have given the South Slavs autonomy had he risen to power.
Too late how? You're acting like the empire's dissolution was somehow inevitable. The allies made it happen, not let it. I don't understand how losing a war somehow seals Austria's "fate".
Franz Joseph was totalitarian faggot in general.
Even when Czechs brought some autonomy demands in half of the war, he refused and then he was wondering why half of our soldiers went running over to russian side.
>for a traditionally non-military power
>better than literally everything that replaced it
because in 1918 people hated Austria and wanted independence. In 1914 Czech politicians wanted some autonomy but popular opinion polarized during war (stuff like dissolution of parliament, panslavism, persecution, death sentences for two prominent nationalist Czech politicians or non-functional suppling really helped)
I admire Franz Joseph but honestly it would have been better for everybody if he had died sooner. Austria needed a unifying figure, not somebody that saw them self first and foremost as a German leader.
Austria-Hungary was traditionally not a military power or militaristic country, and it was miles better than the Soviet SSRs, Nazi protectorates, Yugoslav bullshit, and insignificant modern minor states that came afterwards. What is so strange about that?
>in 1918 people hated Austria and wanted independence
Care to share some evidence of this? Most accounts show that the lesser nationalities just wanted autonomy and most within the empire were completely taken off-guard by its dissolution. Maybe it can be argued that the Czechs were majorly in favor of this because their treatment was admittedly poorer than most, but I don't think the case can really be made with any other nationality that the left-wing radicals demanding independence compromised the majority of the populace anywhere.
>Czechs were majorly in favor of this because their treatment was admittedly poorer than most
Can I get evidence of this ? Poorer than Austrians or Hungarians sure but certainly not poorer than rest of A-H
That belief mainly stems from the fact that they were not even recognized as being a separate entity from Austria proper. The crown of Bohemia was abolished after the Battle of White Mountain and after that the Czechs were no longer a distinct separate administrative division from Austria, and therefore having next to no autonomy or self-governance. They were also subject to more extreme Germanification than everybody else. For instance Prague in 1815 was populated by 50,000 Germans and only 15,000 Czechs.
There was nothing wrong with Austria-Hungary.
What happened was that some Magyar idiots decided it's a good idea to make it exclusively Magyar. They wanted to dominate other cultures.
Austria-Hungary wasn't theirs. Even "Hungary" in Austria-Hungary does not hold any relevance.
Every nation in Austria-Hungary knew the difference between the so called Hungary and Magyars.
If you're really going to demand a citation from me for that figure then it's from "The Habsburg Monarchy 1809-1918" by AJP Taylor. Note that it includes ethnic Czechs that spoke German as a primary language but did not necessarily identify as German, but it displays the kind of cultural repression that the Czechs faced before the 19th century. They had the majority in the city again by WWI but the history of Czechs within the empire had fairly few positive moments, which definitely would have colored their attitudes during 1918.
>Was Austria-Hungary really "doomed to fail", as orthodox historians keep claiming?
I think probably not, the great powers dismantled it. Same could've happened to Britain, Spain, Russia, etc.
My greatfather come from this place, my heritage is italian or austrian?
Multiculturalism between European cultures does not generally fail, examples being the US, Belgium, Switzerland, and the UK. Two of A-H's successor states, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were also multicultural.
The Trento half of South Tyrol is and was majority Italian.
I specifically said that it was based on linguistics and that by World War I the Czechs were in the majority again, what are you trying to prove to me here?
>Two of A-H's successor states, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were also multicultural.
I mentioned Yugoslavia as an example of collapse in my post. Also Czechoslovakia failed as well, although peacefully.
And what happened to the US, Belgium, Switzerland and the UK? There is no historical trend even slightly indicating that multiculturalism between European cultures is a 100% predetermined path to failure.
Fine, Czech speakers. What the fuck is wrong with you, look up the figure if you want. I explicitly said it was based on linguistics in my first post, you are arguing with a strawman. The fact is that in 1815 the vast majority of Prague residents spoke German as their primary language.
>Yugo was always a shithole and the last time I heard
The post made it seem, having them listed along side better countries, that it was intended at a positive example.
>czechs and slovaks are doing fine
yes, but not together, which was the point.
You're literally retarded. Just because your shitty country is named Hungary doesn't mean Kingdom of Hungary was yours.
You're Magyar. You aren't Hungarian.
So fuck your language. Latin was official and there were no problems. Until you came with your idea and ruined it.
Not Slavshits or Romanians ruined it. It was retarded Magyars.
>military performance against the Italians
You know that meme about the French being surrender monkeys and losing every war? The Italians were worse in real life. Military performance against Italy means nothing.
You guys are confusing it with modern "multiculturalism". It's not what either AH or Yugoslavia were. Each nation lived in their own lands, they were just ruled by a single monarch, unlike "multiculturalism" where foreigners are flooding in countries and destroying and replacing the local culture.
Now, there were ethnically mixed places like bosnia and transylvania for example that were the result of wars and migrations and this is usually where the ethnic conflict was.
Yes, it basically survived by pitching the nations and various groups against each other. Divide and conquer.
Best example is Balkans and how Magyars basically created Serb-Croat conflict.
When they conquered Bosnia, they attempted to create ''Bosniak'' identity for all three religions in Bosnia, and made it hostile to Croatian and Serbian influence.
This caused resentment among Catholics and Orthodox in Bosnia.
In Croatia, they used Orthodox Serbs to fight Croatian nationalism, in Bosnia, they used Muslims to punish Serbs and Serb nationalism.
In Ukraine, they pushed heavily for totally separate Ukrainian nation, which had no connection to Russians.
In fact, these Austrian/Magyar designs still affect relations today.
Outside of that, as you can see in this thread, people have different views on that empire.
Czechs for example, who were under Austrian rule, experienced rapid progress and industrialization.
Hungarian part was poorer so people see it with less affinity. Also, in Hungarian part, there was heavy Magyarization campaign, especially in Croatia.
However, one thing is true, ordinary people didn't care that much about this shit.
Austrophiles and nationalists were elites. Ordinary peasant didn't care much.
So talking about ''popular support'' for either monarchy or independent nation-states is dumb.
But Germans and Magyars, as dominant nations of that empire, kept everyone down, not just Serbs. I specifically mentioned how Serbs were propped up in Croatia so Magyars could fuck with Croats.
What do you want me to write, your biased German or Hungarian version of history?
Are you the guy above who wrote ''why couldn't they just speak Magyar''?
Do you have any idea how dumb that sounds?
A-H wasn't that evil or bad, but it was far from ideal.
I'm talking about the late 1800s and early 1900s, Radu
>You're Magyar. You aren't Hungarian.
Everyone who lived in Hungary were Hungarian, doesn't matter if he was Magyar, Slovak, Serb, Jew etc
>having latin as official language in the 1900s
Are you retarded?
>oh boo hoo I don't want to learn Hungarian despite living in a coutnry called Hungary >:(
Uhersko - Maďarsko
Kraljevina Ugarska - Mađarska
Uhorsko - Maďarsko
Кpaљeвинa Угapcкa - Maђapcкa
Ogrska - Madžarska
Hungary was a multi-ethnic state. It wasn't Magyar state.
You just named your country Hungary because you were butthurt that your domination ruined the whole country.
Latin was used until 1784, when German was used and 1836, when the so called "Hungarian" langauge was used.
>The crown of Bohemia was abolished after the Battle of White Mountain and after that the Czechs were no longer a distinct separate administrative division from Austria, and therefore having next to no autonomy or self-governance.
the crown was never abolished, also the czechs did still have land councils and later members of parliament
>You're Magyar. You aren't Hungarian
You're Deutsch, not German?
You're Shquip, not Albanian?
You're Svenskar, not Swedish?
Czech, Moravian and Silesian Landtags still existed even after White Mountain
Dunno, but neither AH or Yugoslavia (or even Czechoslovakia) supported idea of multiculturalism
censuses based nationality on language mostly used in daily contacts, not on mother tongue, and completely ignored bilingual people.
Every nation in Austria-Hungary had a different name for your ethnic group. You weren't Hungarians.
So yes, you still act retarded. And you ignore something you made fun of and act again, like what? Like a retard, with that picture you just posted.
Anyway, how's your day, Kovács. Or should I call you some other names, like...
Kovács - Blacksmith
Tóth - Slovak
Horváth - Croat
Molnár - Miller
Németh - German (but of Slavic origin)
Takács - Weaver
Mészáros - Butcher
Kocsis - Coachman
And this, kids, is the most funny thing in the history. Magyars are crying about Trianon, yet 8 of 20 most used surnames have Slavic origin and 3 of them mean literally "some other nation" - like Croat, Slovak, German.
>country is called Hungaria/Hungary since the medieval ages when the only sizeable minority group was Slovak
>uhhhh y-you just named it so it doesn't look multi ethnic
Oh Radu... The ruling nobility was always Hungarian. Most of the ethnic groups were just peasants until the 1700/1800s (except the Croatians of course).
Who is talking about assimilation? I'm talking about learning the country's language when you live there. The 1868 nationalities law guaranted them to learn their own language anyway. Lex Apponyi (happened 7 years before the grat war) changed this by forcing them to learn Hungarian in elementary schools.
>Croat lives on Croat land, where he lived before Hungarians ever arrived in Panonian Basin
>even though Croatia is distinct part and existed as a state, he has to learn Hungarian for some reason
Why? It's clear Kingdom of Hungary only existed because Magyars had enough power to control it. No one wanted to learn Magyar or be ruled by Magyars, and be second-class citizen in his own land.
You lost that power, so you lost most of that artificial construct. The end.
Austrian military history is not exactly glorious either. I only pointed it out because historians like to ramble on about A-H during World War I like every aspect of their participation was a complete disaster, when in reality they performed at a mediocre but adequate level. I don't know why anybody would have been expecting them to be a major force or have the capability to operate anywhere near Germany's level or even have a chance of being able to put up much of a fight against the Russians without very significant German assistance. For the situation that they were in I think that A-H's military, particularly their navy, performed fine.
Much is also made of the disastrous Serbian front, which was a war Serbia had a defensive advantage in that Austria had to fight simultaneously with the Russian front.
The notion also stems from the Germans looking for others to blame for their defeat. They should not have aligned themselves just with the decidedly unmilitaristic Austrians and the feeble Ottomans if they wanted a coalition of equals.
I was wrong about that, but power was centralized to Vienna after White Mountain and the Czechs did lose self-governance to a strong degree.
The figure served the purpose of proving my point, which was that Bohemia-Moravia were subject to immense Germanification. A huge proportion of citizens of Prague were using German as their primary language for everyday use and I was saying that under the assumption that most of them were bilingual, I made no mention of ethnicity because that was irrelevant to my point.
Nice arguments, bro. Why don't you go back to /pol/, since you have no knowledge of non-falsified history, genealogy, topography and philology.
Or they don't teach you such things in your school, or you would come to the conclusion that your nation is in fact artificial?
"Hungary" is a successor state of Kingdom of Hungary, I give you that. They're both artificial and "Hungary proper" is still multicultural.
>he thinks Austria-Hungary was one country
>lives with other ethnicities for hundres of years
>share some common words, some of them assimilates
>lmao how come you have slav names lol
Really? If his surname is Tót or Horvát, then he was a Slovak or Croatian hundreds of years ago.
Have you ever heard about the Croatian - Hungarian Settlement? They had total control over their education policy (I don't think the Lex Apponyi applied to them, but I don't know this)
What are you arguing about anyway? It was always a magyar country. How can you deny this? When was it ruled by Croatians or Serbians?
>b-but muh Habsurgs!
Dynasty =/= nation
Byzantine Empire > Ottoman Empire
Great Moravia > Kingdom of Hungary
Same shit, different name. But I guess you Turanids consider Turks to be your brothers, so there's a chance you think "Turks for sure taught Byzantines how to live properly".
It was called prison of nations for a good reason.
>Only a small number of Slavic students were allowed to pursue higher education
>Slavs had to pay higher than average taxes even though they earned 11% less than an Austrian and Hungarian,regardless on the quality of their professional service
>not allowed to carry or purchase weapons
>never heard for Dualism in the monarchy
Don't talk about things that you obviously know nothing of.
>Most of Slavic countries of A-H actually liked it and wanted to keep it under idea of Austroslavism
That was just a political stunt used against Slavic nationalism,you're mad if you think that they would've given up on their Dualism in favor for some alleged Austroslavism.
Turks and Magyars for surely didn't know the concept of economics or agriculture, for fucks sake even running a state, because they were nomads.
It absorbed Great Moravia and thus came into existence.
>I always thought that the treatment of the Czechs was ridiculous. I have an extremely hard time believing that the allied-supported independence movements that broke up the Empire had any where near majority support from the population
>Also majority of the Czech population was affected by the propaganda at the end of the war so the urge for new nation was pretty high
I appreciate these convoluted attempts of treating Slavic nationalism and desire to live free from foreign shackles as a product of temporary propagandism ,as if we had no notions of self-respect or the capacity for self-rule.
They didn't give a fuck about your shitty little country. All they cared about the natural protection of the Carpathians and the agriculture of the Carpathian Basin. Learning something that everyone knew in Europe from them or anyone else means they absorbed the country? Are you fucking retarded?
> Yugoslav bullshit, and insignificant modern minor states that came afterwards. What is so strange about that?
How come you Colonial maggots are giving yourself the right to lecture us about our history?It was a shit conglomerate made for secondary uses only,mostly as a bulwark against the Ottoman Empire.It never had the ability or the potential to become a true,intercultural polity of greater importance.
>They were also subject to more extreme germanization than everybody else. For instance Prague in 1815 was populated by 50,000 Germans and only 15,000 Czechs
You're sorely misled if you believe in that,not even Germans tend to do that,and they're masters of revisionism.
>When I attempted to find a simple formula for the period in which I grew up, prior to the First World War I hope that I convey its fulness by calling it the Golden Age of Security. Everything in our almost thousand year-old Austrian monarchy seemed based on per- manency, and the State itself was the chief guarantor of this stability. The rights which it granted to its citizens were duly confirmed by parliament, the freely elected representative of the people) and every duty was exactly prescribed. Our currency, the Austrian crown circulated in bright gold pieces an assurance of its immutability. Everyone knew how much he possessed or what he was entitled to what was permitted and what forbidden. Everything had its norm its definite measure and weight. He who had a fortune could accurately compute his annual interest. An official or an officer for example, could confidently look up in the calendar the year when he would be advanced in rank, or when he would be pensioned. Each family had its fixed budget, and knew how much could be spent for rent and food, for holidays and entertainment; and what is more, invariably a small sum was carefully laid aside for sickness and the doctor's bills, for the unexpected. Whoever owned a house looked upon it as a secure domicile for his children and grandchildren; estates and businesses were handed down from generation to generation. When the babe was still in its cradle, its first mite was put in its little bank, or deposited in the savings bank, as a "reserve” for the future. In this vast empire everything stood firmly and immovably in its appointed place, and at its head was the aged emperor; and were he to die, one knew (or believed) another would come to take his place, and nothing would change in the well-regulated order. No one thought of wars, of revolutions, or revolts. All that was radical, all violence, seemed impossible in an age of reason.
>This feeling of security was the most eagerly sought-after possession of millions, the common ideal of life. Only the possession of this security made life seem worth while, and constantly widening circles desired their share of this costly treasure. At first it was only the prosperous who enjoyed this advantage, but gradually the great masses forced their way towards it. The century of security became the golden age of insurance. One's house was insured against fire and theft, one's field against hail and storm, one's person against accident and sickness. Annuities were purchased for one's old age, and a policy was laid in a girl's cradle for her future dowry. Finally even the workers organized, and won standard wages and workmen's compensation. Servants saved up for old-age insurance and paid in advance into a burial fund for their own interment. Only the man who could look into the future without worry could thoroughly enjoy the present.
Stefan Zweig, The World of Yesterday
When even a liberal Jew praises your traditionalist Catholic Empire, you know you are doing something right.
The main problem was probably the Habsburg way of doing things. They never accepted or cared for the fact that Nationalism was a thing and continued to act like everyone accepted their god-given rule. For the Habsburgs there existed only dynasties and they didn't take concepts like ethnic groups seriously, which of course was also a result of them being based in the HRE, which was basically "What do you mean it's not 1200 anymore" - the state. I think they eventually lost the rule over the German lands to the Prussians for the same reason.
Certainly there were Habsburg elements with a more modern view, but Franz Joseph was hardcore oldschool Habsburg.
Oh look, a namefag inserting his nationality into historical discussion as if it automatically makes him right. This isn't /int/ and we don't have flags for a reason.
Slavic nationalism within the empire was never a majority movement. Most historical research indicates that the majority before 1918 favored autonomy. Leftist insurrectionists taking advantage of the Empire's weakened state, much like they did in both Russia and Germany in the same period are not an indication of a majority movement. No referendums were ever held.
>You're sorely misled if you believe in that
I have a source. You are providing nothing but butthurt and the nationalist dick-waving that prevented this board from being created for so long.
The conservative supporters of autonomism (Staroslovenci( Old Slovenes) had the most supporters, actually, because their political base was Carniola. The radical, more liberal side (Mladoslovenci /Young Slovenes) had more support in those areas where germanisation was more prevalent.
Only in the last years of WW1 did independence become an idea, popular among everyone.
>My point was that left-wing historians will trash Austria-Hungary in retrospect (which is a very easy thing to do) as being "backward" due to it's multicultural, pan-european nature. These same characteristics are being resold to us again today as being "the future".
The difference is that the Austro-Hungarian Empire wasn't an equal partnership between Croats, Bosnians, Huns, Czechs, Slovaks, etc. nor did it pretend to be.
How about a source to substantiate your belief that independence movements were seen as anything other than political radicals at the time?
I wouldn't say we have that today either, besides the "not pretending" part.
Care to type out an actual response instead of just shitposting?
My name is a reference to a long forgotten deity you uneducated buffoon.It has nothing to do with nationality or making me"automatically right.
And yes,Slavic nationalism was a major movement because it formulated the creation of the independent state of Serbs,Croats and Slovenes and it was also the main driving force behind the secession of so many nations withing the Empire because they were treated poorly in favor of the Hungarians and the Austrians.Read up about their fabled Dualism,or is that part of their history easy to ignore?
You have a source?Your source is full of shit and my alleged nationalism is reciprocity to your convoluted attempt at minimizing the inherent malevolence of the Austro-Hungarian Empire towards it's Slavic citizens.
>Most historical research indicates that the majority before 1918 favored autonomy
Let me just guess the nationality of those men who've conducted "most of those historical" researches.I also guess that they were strictly professional and they didn't enforce a point of view?Western historians(the non-Slavic ones) tend to revision Slavic history because they believe that we're their tributaries that should keep their mouths shut when their betters are speaking.This carefully groomed belief affects their opinions and their "scientific' work greatly,and there is no point in denying because it's painfully obvious.
One more thing,i'm a from country which was the under the rule of those parasitic gentlemen and i dare say that our intellectuals are better at deducting their history than you or cousins are.
Österreich-Ungarn 2.0 when? Pls be soon and save us from islamist hordes through the power of the Habsburg Kaiser.
It acted as a strong buffer state between the East Roman,Bulgarian and Frankish Empire and the only reason why it fell so quickly is because the Magyars invaded it during a civil war.
Keep telling that to yourself.
Isn't it strange that they were inducing germanisation in such a crucial time?
>My name is a reference to a long forgotten deity you uneducated buffoon
I nor anybody else care. You are just attention-whoring like every other namefag is.
I'm not interested in your Balkan butthurt, you are letting your nationality color your historical judgements. My source is not "full of shit", it is a real, tangible count of residents of Prague that spoke German as a primary language taken from a reputable historian. Your source is "intellectuals" and nationalistic asspain that is somehow driving you to believe that evil Western historians are manipulating documents showing number of German speakers living in Prague in 1815 somehow.
Yes,they were seen as political radicals by the Austrians because those independence movements were going against their entire establishment.But in the eyes of Russians and Slavic populations,they were movements fighting for freedom.Slavs would've never supported those movements if they weren't marginalized for petty reasons.
You have the actual audacity to lecture us about our own history?Our sources are focused on history as it was,not as it should be.That's the main difference between us and the rest of Europe.
People in Austrian cities spoke German as a status symbol, it doesn't mean they were all Germans. A couple of centuries before that, they spoke Latin in court - does that make European royalty all Roman?
>You have the actual audacity to lecture us about our own history?
Why are you on a history board if all you want to do is wave your passport around as if it matters and attempt to shut discussion down based on national lines?
Go back and read my post, it was one statistic to demonstrate exactly the point you just made. I was talking about German cultural domination over Bohemia-Moravia, not them being turned into literal German colonies. I have no idea why that one statistic has caused so much asspain. I literally said in my second post as a disclaimer before anybody brought it up that it was not related to ethnicity. >>30597 >>30986
Slav fantasies?It would've been destroyed in less than a year after it's foundation if it wasn't strong to survive in such an environment.
Just because you're unable to accept that Germanocentrism is still a thing doesn't mean that you have the right to classify my educated concern as"Balkan butt hurt" or nationalistic asspain.You're sorely misled if you believe that Western historians don't manipulate documents in order to protect the interests of their countries.Germans tend to get a hard on whenever they get the chance to to spread their point of view regarding the history of both Poland and the Czech Republic.
You want proof?German historians will never mention that the official language of the nobility of the Holy Roman Empire was Bohemian all up until the end of the 30 Years War.They'll also never mention that most of their cities in Central and Eastern Germany were founded by Western Slavic tribes that used to control those lands all up until the end of the 12th century.
You 'll always hear how Hitler trampled Poland but you'll never hear them mention how Niklot kept humiliating the armies of the HRE and the Kingdom of Denmark for 30 full years.
You'll also never hear how his son founded the Mecklenburg dynasty.How is that that your Western historians are always so keen on showing your over inflated influence in Slavic history and why are they so vehemently against the documented presence of Slavs in Western history?
Give me the name of that reputable historian,i want to bask in the glory of his academic neutrality.
So asking you a legitimate question is the same as"waving my passport" in an attempt to shut discussions down even though i've asked that question in hope of continuing this discussion?
One more thing,there was no cultural German dominance in Bohemia-Moravia,but there was a sizeable presence of German culture was forcefully promoted in that country in hopes of quelling their desire for freedom and self-governance which was lost at the beginning of the 16th century.The success of that germanisation is partial and it was mostly mitigated after the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans.
Tito killed around 112000 people who just so happened to collaborationists who've assisted the Italians and the Germans in their systematic removal of unaligned Slavs from the face of Yugoslavia.
What do they do with open enemies in your country,i wonder?Do they let them live?
I wouldn be more critical of the post-war massacres, though. While a huge number of those murdered were part of the collaborating forces (their motives and actions would probably deserve a thread of their own), a lot of them were also just political enemies of the communists. In Slovenia, the organisation known as TIGR (Trst, Istra, Gorica, Reka) was destroyed by the communists for being nationalist, too, and the Slovene chetniks who never sided with the Germans were destroyed for not joining the partisans.
Everything would have been better had Franz Joseph been assassinated in 1853 and Maximilian I taken his place.
It's known Maximilian was a liberal (For the period), and when he was emperor of Mexico, he did his best to reform it, so had he taken the Austrian throne, Franz Ferdinand's "United States of Austria" idea might have come off in the mid 1800s.
AJP Taylor has a good one that focuses on 1809 to 1918, I don't agree with all of his conclusions but he's still a solid historian. I would also recommend Steven Beller's biography of Franz Joseph which gives a more personal and feelsy account of the final years of the empire and just how much the geopolitical situation changed against A-H's favor during that time.
You are accusing me of being anti-slav, but nothing could be further from the truth, mate. My fascination with Austria-Hungary comes from a deep appreciation of all cultures of the Danube and a resentment of the Prussian values and hegemony which drove German history on a course that would eventually poison and tear apart Europe. Our disagreement is whether or not the Empire was a good thing for its Slavic population, not whether or not Slavs deserve self-determination and independence.
I think some aspects of the empire were definitely unfair to Slavs but in the end all of the nationalities involved benefited from it, and that it was ultimately far more beneficial than Yugoslavia or pan-Slavic gestures from Russia were. I also think that the current balkanized Slavic Europe has made domination by Western powers more easy, not less. Former A-H countries are solidly anti-migrant, for instance, but Western Europe has ignored their desires and demands at every point. Unified Transdanubia was important for the balance of power and was a valuable bridge between east and west and I think Europe is not for the better with it gone.
Wrong map. Fuck slovenia being with croatian rednecks.
They were acting mostly as spies for the London government and their troops came from German army deserters. If anything, they were on the same level as village guards or the Slovene national council.
>slovenians didnt even exist back then, they were considered either croatian or simply "östereich pferd cleaners" aka austrian stableboys
Slovene here. Excuse me? I would say that Slovenes predate memes such as that of Austrian stableboys, which was invented in the 1980s or even 90s, I believe.
I love this one book about the Habsburgs I've been reading. The author decries the false "national" uprisings that took place in Europe from the late 19th century. I never looked at it before, but I sorta agree with him.
You're right. Just kick everyone else out.
Getting croatia or bosnia was a serious mistake.
>In Croatia, they used Orthodox Serbs to fight Croatian nationalism
But that's absolutely not true
The biggest Serb Orthodox political movement was that of independence from Austria and unity with Croats. And the Croat nationalism within Austria-Hungary was also one of pan-Slavism, as well as that in neighboring Slovenia. There was no ethnic nationalism back then. Serbs weren't a political factor to defeat Croatian irredentism in Austria-Hungary.
Additionally, the foremost pro-Austrianists were actually native ethnic Croats, mostly from the very north of the country. Like I said, Serb political and other representation was not an obstacle in any shape or form, it was clearly on the pro-Slavic side.
Things changed only after the creation of Yugoslavia which led to a split in relations of Croats and Serbs and then WW2 followed and everyone knows what happened there.
Pretty much everything you said in your post is a load of bollocks and empty conjecture based on a thoroughly mistaken idea about the history of Austria-Hungary. It might be best for you not to talk at all.
Shut the fk up. They called us "Wends". Noone called us croats, we speak a 100% different languague
"Until the mid-19th-century German-speakers most commonly used the name Wenden to refer to Slovenes. With the diffusion of the term slowenisch for the Slovene language and Slowenen for Slovenes, the words windisch and Winde or Wende became derogatory in connotation. The same development could be seen in the case of the Hungarian Slovenes who used to be known under the name "Vends"."
It's not the "wrong" map because his map is actually that of the most common proposal, and the one supported by Franz Ferdinand.
And the biggest political forces in Slovenia then were pan-Slavic, not pro-Austrian.
>Getting croatia or bosnia was a serious mistake.
Croatia was a forming member of the Habsburg Empire back in 15th century. Croatia wasn't "gotten", it was there ever since the very beginning.
Bosnia was acquired in 1900s.
dude kill yourself, you basically want to be under austrian or german rule and you show pride in it
you fuckers are a joke, and everyone that knows a slovene doesnt call him a wend but a c u c k, cuz thats what you suckers are
Great post, well researched and thought out. Perfect /his/ material.
Yes, you're seeing 'Croats, Serbs'. Even the Austrians were confused as to who was a Croat and who was a Serb...
>And the biggest political forces in Slovenia then were pan-Slavic, not pro-Austrian.
Those are not mutually exclusive by design. Pan-slavic entity within the empire...
>Croatia was a forming member of the Habsburg Empire back in 15th century
Wrong senpai, Habsburgs were a thing before Hungary was inherited and along it Croatia.
It's like saying we chose to be a part of the Habsburgs because we put them on the princes stone.
Why did they get so fucked hard after world war 1?
>hey hungary we know you've had this land for like 700 years but sorry it's gotta go
that's like giving california to mexico because mexicans live there. it doesn't make any sense at all. it left millions of hungarians in the dust too.
I wonder if in 50 years the US will give up some land to mexico, and germany some land to make some arab state. that's the kind of backward retard logic that went on with the trianon treaty.
hungary didn't deserve this
>Wrong senpai, Habsburgs were a thing
You might need to brush up on your reading skills. The statement you're quoting says "Habsburg Empire" and Habsburg Empire was certainly not a thing before its creation.
House of Habsburg and Habsburg Empire are not the same thing.
A language spoken in areas in Croatia that mostly border Slovenia and speak something closer to Slovenian than to standard Croatian...?
Still, you must be a deluded if you think it's the same as Slovene.
well what do you want me to say
>that you never had your own country
>that you were directely under austria or hungary for your entire history
>that even your "great minds" in 19th century during the illyric movement suggested you start calling yourself croats instead making a seperate nation
whatever i say you'll just start sucking austrian kurac and say how we and yugoslavia ruined lmao
yes, we chose
shit we even chose for hungarians lol
>it happened in 1918 actually, but everyone denied it
It was called the State of Slovenes Croats and Serbs but it merged willingly with Serbia and Montenegro to create the Kingdom of Slovenes Croats and Serbs later Yugoslavia
>implying half of it was your land
i dont know about slovakia, transilwanya or vojvodina but croatia was by no agreement or counquest or anything ever hungarian, so stop bitching with this map
>A language spoken in areas in Croatia that mostly border Slovenia and speak something closer to Slovenian than to standard Croatian...?
Kajkavian was official in Croatia-Slavonia.
>Still, you must be a deluded if you think it's the same as Slovene.
You must be retarded if "what is Kajkavian" equals "it's the same as Slovene". My response was to someone who said that Slovenes speak something that is "100% different".
Learn to read, dimwit.
are you fucking kidding me hungary was that size for 700 years
that's like saying
>implying california, new mexico, and texas is your land
and then giving it to mexico
I'm not accusing you of being anti-Slavic,i'm accusing your intellectuals of being so since the beginning of the gradual decline of Medieval Slavic civilisation at the end of the 15th century,you're just a byproduct of that sentiment.
>Prussian values and hegemony which drove German history on a course that would eventually poison and tear apart Europe
That statement is implying that German history was much more benevolent before that event and that they've been magically forced to behave like monstrous savages in recent history.
>Our disagreement is whether or not the Empire was a good thing for its Slavic population, not whether or not Slavs deserve self-determination and independence
Is that how you call the complete distortion of information regarding the unfair treatment of more than half of the Empire's population?You ever heard for Austro-Hungarian Dualism?They've literally institutionalized their behavior towards us through a legal constitution.
>I think some aspects of the empire were definitely unfair to Slavs but in the end all of the nationalities involved benefited from it
As in,getting your local nobility butchered or displaced,your cities germanised and your people forced out in the cold mountains and farms?Not being given any real rights all up until the end of the 19th century?Losing the right for higher education because the Slav quota has been filled up and your spot will be given to some Fritz who can't even write his name just because he is Austrian,and therefore better than you?
> it was ultimately far more beneficial than Yugoslavia or pan-Slavic gestures from Russia were
So a set of ideological, diplomatic,political and martial victories which gave us our long-lost freedom back and ability to decide for ourselves was less beneficial for us than more than 500 years of civilised servitude?
There is no determining moment as to when the Habsburg Empire came into existence. It can be said to have existed already during 1438 - 1457 when the Habsburgs ruled Bohemia, Hungary and Croatia as legal inheritors of the House of Luxemburg, only to lose them intermittently to the Hunyadis and Hussites.
>one slovene goes to Croatia and calls himself croat
>this now means that our greatest minds of the 19th century suggested anything of the sort or were even part of the illyrian movement
muh stanko vraz amirite
>Kajkavian was official in Croatia-Slavonia.
M8, kajkavian only started appearing in writing in the 12th century, it was official by the virtue of the fact the rest of Croatia-Slavonia had later fallen under the Ottomans so it gained prominence.
WWI Had destroyed faith in the Monarchy, and pretty much every ethnic group living in the country wanted to split off and possess their own clay.
Even if WWI had never happened, the nation probably would have split on its own accord.
Calm down and stop saying /pol/ this and reddit that, I only said "More like 500", nothing more.
Croatia was full of Croats(!), not many Hungarins really lived there. Even when they were under a P.U. with the Hungarians, they had some autonomy. Trianon was unfair, but even if it was more sensible with the ethnical issues, Hungary would still be landlocked.
>M8, kajkavian only started appearing in writing in the 12th century, it was official by the virtue of the fact the rest of Croatia-Slavonia had later fallen under the Ottomans so it gained prominence.
No, it was "official" by virtue of actually being used in official capacity as well as being the informal language in use in economically dominant parts of Kingdom of Croatia.
Shtokavian dominance came about with the creation of Yugoslavia.
Are you under the mistaken impression that I care about Bosnia or Serbia? This discussion is about Austria-Hungary, and Kajkavian was the only written standard Croatian language in use in that country.
>I also think that the current balkanized Slavic Europe has made domination by Western powers more easy, not less. Former A-H countries are solidly anti-migrant, for instance, but Western Europe has ignored their desires and demands at every point.
The Western power has declined considerably if they're forced to argue with incredibly young and economically infantile post-communist societies.We'll never accept their demands,you can be rest assured of that.
"Unified Transdanubia was important for the balance of power and was a valuable bridge between east and west and I think Europe is not for the better with it gone"-You know what i appreciate about you Germanics?How quickly you change you tonality when you're talking to someone who isn't completely clueless.First you're spreading false information,then you go for personal assaults which are almost always clouded with ridicule and when that fails,then you adapt the tactic of assuming the position of higher moral,neutral ground which is worried about the greater good and what's best for everyone,which is always based on the expense of our independence.It wasn't united,it was forced upon millions of people and it was maintained through deceit and empty political promises.
So you let them live even though they're turned against just because some failed wall painter ordered them to shoot their neighbors with whom they've lived for most of their lives?Even they've assisted the planned destruction of your people?That's a lie,a convenient one at that.
why should a 40% hungarian minority be allowed to be displaced?
and people wonder why hungary is so against immigration. last time they let immigrants in they lost 2/3rds of their land.
again with this same logic, London, Malmo, and stockholm belongs to arabs. Detroit and every city belongs to the black people, and texas, NM, and cali belong to mexicans.
it's stupid. i could see arguing croatia but checkoslovakia and romania had a 33% hungarian population.
is this why leftists defend trianon so much. is it because it's your fantasy for the white man to be c ucked and bred out of their own country?
cba reading entire thread
I recently went to a conference on World War 1 and the extent of nationalization (not in the economical meaning, but rather "the process of emerging nationalism"). Speakers such as John Breuilly, John Horne, Marco Mondini and Laurence Cole seemed to agree that nationalization in Austria-Hungary was far more limited than previously assumed in historiography. Ethnic conflict was not a major factor in this multiethnic empire and was not cause for the breakup. In this sense, Austria-Hungary was NOT "doomed to fail". The main factor was, according to these scholars, the war experience itself. As the state could no longer provide its citizens with a decent standard of living and security (thus nullifying the social contract between state and citizen), the different nations within the empire simply claimed sovereignty and mobilized the population which no longer wanted to fight the war.
Some of the speakers went into detail about some specific cases such as the Czech front line failing not due to any nationalistic insurgence, but rather materialistic/operational failure. Also example of ethnic Italians serving in the A-H army, who then got captured by the Italians, however the majority of these prisoners did not switch sides and fight for some irredentist cause. Cole also mentioned that many in the Balkan regions of A-H preferred the solution of a South-Slavic union within the larger Habsburg empire, but did not in fact want complete secession.
>TL;DR: the break-up of the Habsburg empire can be better explained by a lack of willingness to fight resulting from the war experience, as opposed to A-H splitting up because of overly nationalistic feelings among the different ethnicities
Any thoughts on this?
>No, it was "official" by virtue of actually being used in official capacity as well as being the informal language in use in economically dominant parts of Kingdom of Croatia.
Is that why it only started appearing in any comprehensive works in the 16th century? You know, when the rest of Croatia was occupied, especially Dalmatia?
>Shtokavian dominance came about with the creation of Yugoslavia.
This is another myth Croats perpetrate.
>In the mid-19th century, Serbian (led by self-taught writer and folklorist Vuk Stefanović Karadžić) and most Croatian writers and linguists (represented by the Illyrian movement and led by Ljudevit Gaj and Đuro Daničić), proposed the use of the most widespread dialect, Shtokavian, as the base for their common standard language. Karadžić standardised the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, and Gaj and Daničić standardized the Croatian Latin alphabet, on the basis of vernacular speech phonemes and the principle of phonological spelling
>In 1850 Serbian and Croatian writers and linguists signed the Vienna Literary Agreement, declaring their intention to create a unified standard.
>Hungarians were a minority in "Hungary"
What? no they weren't
>doesn't change much if they become a minority in Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia or Romania.
and why should that matter? it was hungary's land for 500 years. it should have stayed their land.
Except Hungarians were the new arrivals, not the other way around.
A more proper analogy is that Mexicans show up in California, rule the land for 500 years, and then bitch when they're overthrown and lose most of it.
"Their terror' wasn't the reason for the war,it was ethnic ultra nationalism which wasn't successfully dampened in the periods before the war.Plus they weren't communists,they were Socialists.And you can't compare our"communists" to the Germans and their allies in terms of brutality.
>Yes, the Austrian portion would've wanted to join Germany after the end of a successful Central powers victory
Not a chance, they already had a chance to do so but didn't want to lose their empire.
except if you look at how it was partitioned Hungarians were still the majority in parts that got partitioned due to them "being a minority" when that was in fact bullshit
you can look at it right here, basically they said "lol you live in romania now deal with it"
if they were truly breaking up the country on "ethnic grounds" hungary would have been a lot bigger today. so your argument holds zero water.
4chan is shit and the image is too big for 4chan, you can look at it here.
again, i don't see why anyone would defend trianon treaty, unless you are a romanian, or a self hating white. it smells like reddit in here.
Pan-Germanism was not a priority for most Austrians and never was unless it was lead by the Austrians themselves. Unless you are actually going to justify that statement with the Anschluss plebiscite.
Their terror (assassinations of Slovene figures in the early days of the Axis occupation - when the communist didn't actively stand on the side of the people yet, interestingly) was what forced the locals to look for support among the occupying force. If Tito's "cowboys" didn't start shooting, there would probably be no violence in our lands, no dead civilians and burned villages. Every time a partisan was sighted in a village, the villagers paid the price for it.
The Slovene council (a sort of government under occupation) acted in the best interests of the Slovene people, trying to prevent any violence by the Axis forces, while gathering information for the Allies and gathering weapons to organise a resistance when the time was right.
The communists' main goal was revolution, freeing the country from the Germans was just a way to get there. I am not defending neither side, because the leaders on both sides had their own interests, but the soldiers - both among the partisans and the home guard - were just men trying to defend their people.
Also, a prime reason that Prussia didn't support a Groß Deutsche Lösung was that Bismarck believed that if Germany got any bigger than the Borders of the German Empire, the other great powers of Europe would view Germany as too powerful and rally around to destroy it. With Germany beating these powers already, the German monarch would support a merger with the Austrians
It was a plural movement until 1943-44, not communist
>The Slovene council (a sort of government under occupation) acted in the best interests of the Slovene people, trying to prevent any violence by the Axis forces, while gathering information for the Allies and gathering weapons to organise a resistance when the time was right.
Best interest? While 70 thousand Slovenes were mobilized in the wehrmacht (by force) and another 80 thousand deported to concentration camps, work camps or to Croatia/Serbia while Germans are being settled in their place?
Doesn't matter what a German monarch in Germany wants, the Habsburgs are not budging and giving control to the Prussians, and once again, the Austrian part of the Empire was not German, it was mutli national with Germans only consisting 33% of the population.
What were they going to do, openly act against the Germans? They spied for the Allies and actually destroyed the files on Slovene communists, saving them from certain death by the hands of the Axis.
They were also trying to have the Axis unite the occupied Slovene lands under one overlord, but the Axis didn't want to hear anything of it.
The Slovenian pro-collaborationist view that you present here is interesting in that it completely disregards any violence or terror on the part of the occupying forces and reduces WWII in Slovenia to a war between the true aggressor (the communists) and the defender of the populace (the Church and the Home Guards), as though there had never been an occupation and a plan of genocide and ethnocide against Slovenes at all. This of course doesn't reflect the wartime situation at all, but instead shows the agenda of the right-wing side of the Slovenian political spectrum post-independence, which is to discredit communism and to replace the Party with the Church once again.
>What were they going to do, openly act against the Germans?
Yes, actually, there was no other way.
>They spied for the Allies and actually destroyed the files on Slovene communists, saving them from certain death by the hands of the Axis.
They also collaborated with them which brought directly or indirectly deaths to thousands.
>They were also trying to have the Axis unite the occupied Slovene lands under one overlord, but the Axis didn't want to hear anything of it.
Which just shows how delusional they were thinking they would have been accepted as equals while being sibject to deportations and germanization...
I see the Second World War in Slovenia as agression both from the occupator as well as the communists, with the native population being forced to choose one of the two. Even after 1943, when the Home Guard was organised, I can still understand why those people fought for the occupator. Many people didn't really have a choice - during the day, they would be recruited by the collaborators and by partisans during the night. Not only was it a civil war for our people, but a war where families would wind up on different sides.
Still, the only real pro-collaborationist views I have - in my opinion - is for the village guards (vaške straže), who asked the Italians for weapons so they could defend their homes from the partisans. I still see the partisans as the defenders of our people but I also acknowledge that their political leadership wasn't so honest about their interests.
I would like to see us remember the victims from both sides, because different circumstances led them down different paths.
Sorry about that.
For Austrians and Hungarians. Problem is a lot of the people living in the Austrian half didn't see themselves as Austrians, and probably a majority of those in the Hungarian half didn't see themselves as Magyars - and the governments of both halves were accountable to the nobles and the king, not the people.
>Problem is a lot of the people living in the Austrian half didn't see themselves as Austrians
That's half true, Austrian wasn't an ethnicity the way it is today, German speakers were Germans, not Austrians.
So I guess it could be possible to nurture a multi-ethnic regional Austrian identity separate from a national one.
Even today many Austrians see themselves more as Viennese, Lower Austrian, Styrian, Tyrolian etc...than 'Austrian'. Source: native Austrian here. During the monarchy 'Austrian' was a term to identify oneself with the house of Austria (casa Austria, Habsburg) rather than an ethnicity.
It is actually, plenty of Austrians identify as of Austrian, I'm not going to say a majority but plenty do so.
Yes, that's why I made the case for nurturing a regional identity that is independent of an ethnic one.
Thus anyone could be an Austrian, and that was already the case as you say.
>it was Hungarian as Hungarians lived there
>what? no, it doesn't matter that Hungarians were a minority there, it was Hungarian for 500 years
>what? so what if it belonged to other before Hungary conquered it? Hungarians lived there
>so did others? b.. but
You know, this Hungarian exceptionalism is quite ridiculous. You bitch about Muslims invading Europe while you are the invaders.
Maybe in 500 years, when Europeans decide to take their own countries back (from Muslims), Muslim will bitch like "brah it was ours for 500 years".
AUSTRO-HUNGARY FAILED CAUSE OF HUNGARY
Throughout history hungarians oppresed romanians ,at 1849 revolution out of 300 people in Transilvany ruling positions,3 were romanian and 30 saxons even though romanians held the majority of populations and saxons were almost as numerous as hungarians.
The hungarian greed knows no limit,they tried to forcefuly magyrize us,the saxons,croatians,slovakians etc...
>For Austrians and Hungarians
This is the thing. Austria and Hungary had their own devolved administrations and the empire was truly a "Double monarchy." If either Franz Ferdinand's plan for complete federalization of the empire or Charles' idea for a pan-Slavic federalized substate of the empire had been fully realized then local government would likely have developed fairly quickly and naturally. In truth, the liberal ideas of the heirs to the Austro-Hungarian throne were the most dangerous threat to Serbian/pan-Slavic nationalism.
And how is Magyarization relevant to the fall of Austria-Hungary? Romania on their own would never be able to take all of Transylvania, they couldn't even make it when Austria was exhausted from fighting in different fronts in the war
>I don't understand how losing a war somehow seals Austria's "fate".
You lose a war, you lose your lands. The peace treaty the Germans drew up stripped Russia of as much land as they could take. The peace treaty the Allies drew up stripped Austria-Hungary of as much land as they could take. Germany lost some land in Europe and all her colonies in Africa and Asia.
World War One was supposed to be the Great War, the war to end all wars. After so much sacrifice in the name of victory both sides looked for total victory, aiming to reduce their enemies to a beleaguered state.
I think what he means is that losing a war didn't necessarily mean the complete dismantlement of a state at the time. You'd lose some land and have to pay reparations, but deposing the monarch and establishing several successor republics (or deposing several monarchs and establishing one successor republic as in Germany) had little precedent, especially when we consider that the belligerents were European great powers.
In the case of Austria-Hungary, it was more than just peace treaty conditions. The whole country went into anarchy in the last days of the war, factions based on ethnic groups popping up, republics declaring independence.
>Poland still gets Vilnius
What the fuck is the deal with this? Why is Lithuania always cheated out of its historical capital in all of these proposed treaties? I'm not a Baltaboo, but seriously. This is like giving Vienna to the Italians or Paris to the Germans. Hell, the Poles should understand, considering how much they'd been shat on in the past.
Also did the Kaiserreich really sign over Danzig and the corridor to the Poles? I find that kind of hard to believe.
This one's pretty good so far. Interesting tidbits about how one of the major challenges was the lingual barrier among the common soldiers.
The language diversity was a problem outside of military, too. No wonder this region is so multilingual to this day.
Where I live (Upper Carniola, a region in the north of Slovenia), our dialect was shaped by living together with Germans. I live near a city that was inhabited by many craftsmen. Crafts were dominated by Germans so most words from shoemaking, smithing, even terms for car parts, in our language came from German. Only later did we get our own, Slovene words for many tools. But our dialects retain germanisms.