Why Austria was so against autonomy for slavic nations, but granted

They didn't have a choice.
Hungary nearly re-gained independence in the 1848 Revolution, Austria needed Russian help in stopping it.

Austria doubled down on opressing slavs after the dual monarchy was established. So did Hungary, because guess what: they didn't want all those Romanians and Slovenians to steal their clay.

So, Austria placated Hungary by giving them equal status and Slav opression cart blanche.

>>1978965
>>1978993
Franz Josef fucked up by constantly shifting between promises of federalization (not nearly Hungary-tier autonomy) and attempts at absolutism which made everyone fed up with him and additionally destabilised the realm. Should have federalized like originally proposed.

Austria was against nationalism in general not just for the slavs

just seemed like a bunch of leftist bullshit to them

I see you are croatian op. All slavs in the monarchy formed a majority against the germans and the hungarians, which meant they would lose power, so they didn't give them any autonomy. Franz ferdinand didn't want to create a trialist monarchy but rather a federation of 10ish regions that would centralize the country rather then form opposing centers.

>>1979119
This. Modern nationalists don't realize that traditional monarchism is to the far right of nationalism.

>>1979002
>Romania
>Slavs

>>1978965
Does anyone have the version of this flag with like 7 different countries on it?

File: Austria-Hungary_map_de.png (131KB, 776x600px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 776x600px

>>1978965

Hungary's autonomy was very far-reaching, it had independence in all internal matters; under the union with Austria, only foreign policy and the army were common domains of the two parts. Additionally, they shared the monarch who was Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary in personal union. The customs union as well as the common currency had to be realized through bilateral treaties between Austria and Hungary.

Now, if all Slavic countries got the same deal as Hungary you'd have a very loose union of quasi-independent states. It was already difficult to negotiate a common foreign and defense policy between Austria and Hungary alone, if there were seven or more member states the situation would become really complicated. I think there would have to be at least a common legislative assembly to make a federalist union; the Hungarians would have been fiercely against this though as it would have meant less autonomy for themselves.

It is noteworthy that Cisleithania was divided into a number of crown lands who had their own local parliaments. In Hungary, only Croatia had their own local parliament. Through these institutions Slavs could exercise some autonomy in crown lands were they were the majority (i.e. Czechs in Bohemia and Moravia, Croats in Dalmatia, etc.) Obviously, that form of autonomy wasn't nearly as big as the Hungarian, and the borders of the crown lands didn't follow ethnic lines so they weren't real autonomous national entities.

>>1978965

> Nominal right to rule over themselves was enought to defeat all of the cancerous separatism.

Actually, despite its autonomy, wide sections of the Hungarian population were in favor of full independence or an even looser (e.g. separate armies) and merely symbolic union with Austria. In 1905 the Independentists won the election in Hungary. However, Franz-Joseph appointed a "loyalist" government, which subsequently governed without the parliament where it had no majority. The result was a crisis and passive resistance by the Independentists. The Austrian general staff already prepared "Case U" war plans to crush a possible armed Hungarian uprising, but eventually the Independentists made a compromise with the Emperor and mostly accepted the status quo in the empire.

https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/10479

>>1978965
Because next to the Austrian Aristocracy, the Hungarian one is the biggest.

In addition, the ratio of noble to pleb population in Hungary is bigger than in Austrian. 10% of Hungarys population before was Noble.

Because unlike the other ethnicities, Hungary was an actual sovereign country before with its own insitutions, legal traditions, noble classes and so on.

This applies to Croatia to a lesser degree too.

Plus Hungary's weight was too much to subdue it completely.

>>1981396
>10% of Hungarys population before was Noble.
Like Polish szlachta, most of them were only nominally nobles, and were usually poorer than the richest peasent families in the village.

>>1978965

There were plans to turn the empire into a genuine federation, but they always got limited to Cisleithania/certain states only, effectively leaving the Hungarians alone with their relative autonomy and causing the other nations to secede after the Great War.

The monarchy today is still well-regarded in some states like Czechia or Hungary tho, Karl even tried to reclaim the throne in Transleithania a few times due to their support

>>1979884
Not to be rude, but I thought it was pretty common knowledge that Romania only went through its Latinization process in the 19th century, and before that the language of the Wallacians was much more (and maybe mostly) Slavic.

>>1978965

Hungary was reliant on Austria for defence against Russia (and before that, the Ottomans). The Slavs of the Empire, on the other hand, had Russia as their potential guardian due to Panslavic ideology, so they could leave and stay protected. Increasing their autonomy was dangerous.
Also, the different Slavic peoples had little with common with each other - Austria couldn't deal with them as one. A second Compromise would have led to the complete federalization of the Empire rather than a three-way Empire.
That said, there were attempts for this. After Hungary was dealt with in 1867, the Czechs and Croats demanded a similar deal. This was ultimately abandoned, since neither of them had the influence Hungary possessed.

>>1979002
romanians aren't slavs mate they don't speak a slavic language