How did this place manage to not split up into different countries

why would it

>>2229961
By not being autistic?

>>2229961
Because the national state wasn't a thing back then?

>>2229961

Most of the outlying areas stuck to Austria and Hungary proper because of fear of the Ottoman Turks. It's not exactly a surprise that they started having problems almost immediately as soon as the Turkish empire in Europe started collapsing.

>>2229961
Because Franz Joseph was very liked by almost all the peoples of the empire on a personal level. Also because it only lasted about 80 years, and only existed in the first place because a civil war tore apart its immediate predecessor.

>>2229961
Supra-national identity. And by national I mean racial.

The same reason Rome didn't immediately fall apart, and Africans were willing to fight in the world wars. They felt they were part of the larger whole of the Empire that had brought them peace, progress, and prosperity. At least before nationalism infected them too.

>>2230033
despite the fact it's next to a united Germany and Italy, sure the national state wasn't a thing

File: 8_242016_book-habsburg8201_c1-0-2933-1710_s885x516.jpg (73KB, 885x516px)

73KB, 885x516px

>>2229961
Because there was a sense of civic nationalism, and there was a genuine belief among the peoples of Austria that it was better to be in a multi-national empire that by virtue of demographics HAD to listen to their concerns than split up into lots of little nation-states to be dominated by Germany or Russia.

Austria-Hungary collapsed from its total inability to feed its people, not from nationalist movements viewing WW1 as the big chance to break free. This was obviously a point of embarrassment to the new nationalist governments that tumbled out of the Paris Peace Conference, so they created a more flattering narrative. Pic related is a dope read.

>>2230444
>sense of civic nationalism,
I don't buy this. For example, if you had moved...10 million Somalis into the middle of that, you'd no longer have a "civic nationalism" that worked.

Despite the ethnic differences, they were on the whole compatible ethnicities, overwhelmingly Christian, and with a historic enemy (the Ottoman) that was in recent enough memory that it made it in all their interests to cooperate.

As an example, look what we have going on in Sweden now. That nation is not going to survive another decade with the way things are going, simply because the groups they have brought in are not compatible with the indigenous. It will be quite interesting to see what grows out of it.

We in the West have become an amazingly ahistorical people, especially the political elite. "Diversity" in Europe only worked in places like Czechoslovakia when it was enforced at the point of bayonet. My...educated guess is that before 2030, you will have numerous groups planting IEDS, and not all of them be islamics. '

I know, Swedens have a reputation as pushovers. But people are only nice until one day they are not. Keep in mind, these are the same genetic stock who used to force-feed Russian soldiers cow manure until they choked to death.

>>2230531
This
>Despite the ethnic differences, they were on the whole compatible ethnicities, overwhelmingly Christian, and with a historic enemy (the Ottoman) that was in recent enough memory that it made it in all their interests to cooperate
is literally just what other posters just said. Obviously this sort of Imperial civic nationalism works better with a common cause and with cultural priorities that aren't wildly divergent and alien. That's just common sense.

Not sure what that or Austro-Hungarian social/national politics had to do with Swedes and Somalia, other than giving you an opportunity to rant. (Imo you're not wrong, but this really isn't the place for it. This isn't /pol/, and even if it was, you could at least keep a given thread on topic.)

>>2230531
I'm aware that civic nationalism is a meme right now on /pol/, but it's the term I figured best described Austria-Hungary.

>shared sense of supranational heritage (catholic, god save the kaiser, be sort of chill about things)
>shared enemies ("we are the original kebabliminators", later on "our rights and freedoms are respected and protected unlike those nasty russians" and "we are men of honor and integrity unlike those scum in the house of savoy")
>all of this existed alongside traditional nationalism

That being said, the Dual Monarchy's brief period of including muslims (in the form of Bosnia) went pretty smoothly. The Bosniaks fought with distinction for the Empire, but it could be argued that's part of Bosnia's "slavs that are muslim rather than muslim slavs" character.

I won't go into your tangent about Sweden and Somalis, but I'll say part of the magic of Austria making multikult work was some carrot and stick; having alternative definitions of what was "Austrian" was tolerated and even encouraged in some situations, but there were clear definitions of what deviating too far consisted of and that it was punished with extreme prejudice.

>>2230444
>Because there was a sense of civic nationalism,
Why were political parties organized along ethnic lines then?

>>2229961
It was the most tolerant Empire in Europe, compared to Germany or Russia.

It gave people sense that they can achieve autonomy through political means.

File: greater_austria_althis_by_lamnay.jpg (399KB, 1558x1280px)

399KB, 1558x1280px

>>2230444
>civic nationalism

The main reason Austria-Hungary even existed was to appease Hungarian ethnic nationalism while suppressing all the other ones.
Other nations who, ironically, used to be far more loyal to the Crown than Hungary, but their desires were simply ignored.

I know people try to present A-H as some sort of great alliance of nations under the Hapsburg, that were treated all its subjects fairly, but it literally wasn't. I would have been great if it had been, but it simply wasn't.
One nation had their own large autonomous kingdom with their own passport, government, laws, education.
Other nations didn't even have their own country, or their was amalgamated into a larger one.

Pic related should have happened in 1867, not remain some obscure project in the 1910s.

>>2230531
>these are the same genetic stock who used to force-feed Russian soldiers cow manure until they choked to death.
thats fucking brutal

File: Pew_Muslim_European_Population.png (42KB, 560x506px)

42KB, 560x506px

>>2230531
>That nation is not going to survive another decade
>My...educated guess is that before 2030
>educated
>2030

>>2232541

>Other nations didn't even have their own country, or their was amalgamated into a larger one.

The various crown lands of Cisleithania had their own legislative assemblies and within the Kingdom of Hungary Croatia-Slavonia was also semi-autonomous and with its own parliament.

>>2229961
Nationalists are anachronistic cucklords who believe mankind is naturally nationalist and nation states are somehow natural, instead of a 19th century concept. It's really no different than communists asking why isn't everyone communist now.

>>2230397
Germany was united only in 1871.

>>2230444
>civic nationalism
Let's dispell this meme term finally, the only form of nationalism is ethnic nationalism. "Civic nationalism" is called just patriotism.

>>2232645
So?
Many nations didn't have their own crown land, nor did the existing crown lands have the level of autonomy Hungary had.
Croatia-Slavonia should have been a completely separate state, not part of Hungary.

>>2230531
>Swedes
You do realize that nature and national temperament of people can change over time, right? Modern Swedes have absolutely nothing to do with ancient Swedes, character-wise.

>>2232678
>Many nations didn't have their own crown land
Why should they

>>2229961
It was possible while Hungarians were wild and Germanising tribes. They got national pretensions in 19 century and Slavs started to hate them. Perfect decision was to tranfer Slavs' regions from Hungarian to German part of empire, it wanst done and brought to fail.
Also, obvious WWI.

Together they were a super power and Franz Joseph was a very popular and hardworking leader.

>>2232540
(You) for a good summary.

>>2232453
1. Plenty of parties weren't organized along ethnic lines 2. crownlands tended to correspond to a dominant language, which people wanted to agitate in defense of. If the Hungarians could eventually achieve parity with Vienna, why couldn't everyone else?
>>2232541
France should have contained Prussia in the 1860s, Prussia should have united Germany in 1848, and Britain should have intervened in the Irish Famine. History played out the way it did for logical reasons, and hindsight is 20/20.

>>2232663
I was tired at the time. The correct term I've seen used is imperial patriotism.

>>2232678
The Monarchy was inexorably moving in a federalist direction, but WW1 happened.

>>2232656
Sort of agree with this guy too. People are really eager to see the nation-state as the logical and natural unit of a county, but history and real life are typically a bit more complicated than that.

File: 9c181e58edbd1f5e9e2537b5d0112a54.jpg (151KB, 736x802px)

151KB, 736x802px

>>2229961
I'm wondering why are people asking this about Austria-Hungary but aren't asking the same about other multi-ethnic countries like Britain, Russia, Switzerland, Spain etc.

Austria-Hungary collapsed because of external pressure, not internal divisions. I swear if someone beat Britain in a war and split the country between England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, retards now would be saying that it was somehow "inevitable" and that Britain would collapse even without losing a war.

Also thread teme: https://youtu.be/QZjsUrUps-o

>>2232678
>So?

It was to demanstrate that in Cisleithania most peoples could exert some form of national autonomy via the institutions of the crown lands. It's true that the borders of the crown lands weren't drawn along ethnic lines, although the crown lands were often centuries old and its inhabitants often had quasi-patriotic feelings for them irrespective of ethnicity.

>the level of autonomy Hungary had

Hungary was effectively an independent state in internal matters and it was already difficult enough to negotiate the terms of the union and keep the two halfs together. If AH had been split into 8-10 largely independent nations it would have descended into an EU-tier entity at best or eventually just disolved. That's why Franz Ferdinand's Greater Austria vision planned to curb Hungary's autonomy instead of giving it to all nations.

File: asss3.jpg (144KB, 704x963px)

144KB, 704x963px

>>2232820
The Hungary example was about how grossly unbalanced different nations were. It also generated resentment and envy among the nationalities.
Maybe it would have been too difficult to give everybody that level of autonomy, but perhaps this shouldn't have been given in the first place, but what >>2232753 said about hindsight. Treating nations more or less the same would have eased tensions.

>it was already difficult enough to negotiate the terms of the union and keep the two halfs together
Well, this is what the Austrians themselves created.