Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "Nationalism DOESN’T explain WHY Austria-Hungary collapsed" video.

  1. I do agree that economics alone cannot explain the collapse. I also concur there were a multiplicity of factors that combined to make this collapse occur: 1) Economics - the lack to food is definitely a major issue here. Centralization and rationing are targeted as the main culprits. But is this really the case? How much food did Austro-Hungary consume versus its production? If, like Germany in 1917-1918, there was a net deficit (i.e., they had to import food from elsewhere), then centralization of food distribution does make sense. Germany also suffered from food riots in 1918 as well, but didn't disintegrate. Britain in both WWI and WW2 had food rationing, as did the US in WW2, yet there were no revolutions in these countries. Therefore, I would suggest that the economics of food distribution was only part of the story. 2) Military defeats - the loss of morale within both the military and civilian populations, as well as the high death toll, would have contributed to the collapse of the multi-ethnic state. Following the defeat in the battle of Vittorio Veneto in 1918, as well as the collapse of the Balkan Front, what little hope the Austro-Hungarians had of ultimate victory would have vanished. People would have started searching around for both scapegoats and the means to get out of the war before they were invaded. In desperation they would have turned to solutions other than those presented by the central government, in this case nationalistically-based states. 3) Ethnicity - this had already posed problems for the Hapsburgs as they declined in power from 1848-1867, which is why the Hungarians were given more say in government and the Austrian Empire was renamed the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Habsburgs "dodged a bullet" during this time, but many nationalist groups sprang up during this time. Those that were well organized and were making their presence felt on the international scene (especially during WW1) obtained recognition both inside Austro-Hungary and internationally. Thus, when the crises of 1917-1918 (economic and military) hit, these groups (Czechs, Hungarians, Slovaks, Croatians, Slovenes) attracted a lot adherents. This lead to a dispersal of political power and created clear factions within Austro-Hungary. It also didn't help that these very groups were being persecuted, further solidifying the legitimacy of these political groups. 4) External pressures - the situation in 1918 was definitely different than in 1848. In 1848, several countries in Europe were suffering from political upheavals, and many nation states were struggling to maintain the post-Napoleonic stability in Europe. Since these were all internal revolts that, had they spread, could have destabilized Europe. efforts were made to help nations in the throws of revolution. In 1918, the British and French (as well as the Americans), wanted to destabilize the Central Powers, so it behooved them to legitimize and support these independence movements. It also allowed the Allies to punish Austro-Hungary for starting the war, and weaken them (it was hoped) to the point where they would be unable to start another "War to end all wars". These four factors (there may be some I didn't think of), working in concert caused the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. For instance, when Hungarian soldiers on the front lines were told to head home by the Hungarian politicians, they did so. Literally, they dropped their weapons and walked away. I know this from talking with a couple of Hungarians whose fathers fought in WW1. In other words, the soldiers of various ethnic backgrounds listened to politicians from their own ethnic backgrounds, not the Austrian officer corps. The civilian population, tired of the war, the casualties caused by inept leadership, food shortages and the like, followed suit. Therefore, I would say that rather than socialist policies, the real cause for the lack of food and materials were the British blockade, inept management of those resources on hand, and disruption of international trade within Europe itself. Indeed, if you think about it, if you cannot sustain your own population with your own agricultural base, it is really STUPID to start a war with the breadbasket of Europe - Russia, and the country that still pretty much controlled international trade - Britain.
    1