Why did Germany join Austria Hungary in 1WW?

rupol2000

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2021
18,215
2,628
138
They were enemies and the Prussians strove to conquer Austro-Hungary. Why didn't they join the Entente?
 
Germany were allies with Austria-Hungary. Germany's Otto von Bismarck saw the alliance as a way to prevent the isolation of Germany and to preserve peace, as Russia would not wage war against both empires. ... The agreement remained an important element of both German and Austro-Hungarian foreign policy until 1918.



Besides, the Austrians were very much like the Germans in every way. Austria and Hungary were Germanys dearest allies in WWII besides the Italians.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
Germany were allies with Austria-Hungary. Germany's Otto von Bismarck saw the alliance as a way to prevent the isolation of Germany and to preserve peace, as Russia would not wage war against both empires. ... The agreement remained an important element of both German and Austro-Hungarian foreign policy until 1918.



Besides, the Austrians were very much like the Germans in every way. Austria and Hungary were Germanys dearest allies in WWII besides the Italians.
This is unconvincing. The main enemy of Austria-Hungary was precisely Germany, because between them there was a struggle for central Europe.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
Far more dangerous to both was the Russians taking control of the Balkans as the Ottomans withdrew ...
There was no Russian influence there; it abandoned all claims long before that, at the Berlin Congress. Bulgaria joined Austria Hungary and the rest were independent.
 
They both feared Russia; Russia started a major upgrade and modernization of its military after its defeats at the hands of Japan, which alrmed both Germany and the the Dual Monarchy. Wilhelm in turn had been rattling sabers for the last decade, demanding colonies and generally bullying everybody around him. With both Serbia, Italy on one flank and an expanding Russian military on the other, and a weakening Ottoman satellite cluster to its south and east, and it was pretty much bound to the new German Federation and the Habsburgs. The Habsburgs ruled Austria for hundreds of years. Vienna was their family capital.


Centuries later, their very existence precarious, they were protected by more powerful upstarts solely because their existence in the middle of a fractious Central Europe was the best option available. As one Czech nationalist noted later, if they did not exist, they would need to be invented. When their rule was finally and permanently ended, thinkers ranging from Stefan Zweig to Michael Oakeshott bemoaned the loss, believing that their continued existence, illogical and seemingly unjustifiable as it was, was still to be preferred to their end.


Alongside the Romanovs and the Bourbons, the Habsburg monarchical family can legitimately claim to have made and fashioned much of the world we know today. So what was the Habsburg secret?


In his new history of the Habsburgs, Professor Martyn Rady of University College London argues that it comes down to three things: luck, political acumen, and mythmaking.


Basically, an idiot, Wilhelm II, inherited the Throne in Europe. Both Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Russia were still feudal states.

RE Hungary, with the weakening of the Ottomans over south central Europe, an alliance with Austria becomes necessary, is the short answer.

 
They both feared Russia; Russia started a major upgrade and modernization of its military after its defeats at the hands of Japan, which alrmed both Germany and the the Dual Monarchy. Wilhelm in turn had been rattling sabers for the last decade, demanding colonies and generally bullying everybody around him. With both Serbia, Italy on one flank and an expanding Russian military on the other, and a weakening Ottoman satellite cluster to its south and east, and it was pretty much bound to the new German Federation and the Habsburgs. The Habsburgs ruled Austria for hundreds of years. Vienna was their family capital.


Centuries later, their very existence precarious, they were protected by more powerful upstarts solely because their existence in the middle of a fractious Central Europe was the best option available. As one Czech nationalist noted later, if they did not exist, they would need to be invented. When their rule was finally and permanently ended, thinkers ranging from Stefan Zweig to Michael Oakeshott bemoaned the loss, believing that their continued existence, illogical and seemingly unjustifiable as it was, was still to be preferred to their end.


Alongside the Romanovs and the Bourbons, the Habsburg monarchical family can legitimately claim to have made and fashioned much of the world we know today. So what was the Habsburg secret?


In his new history of the Habsburgs, Professor Martyn Rady of University College London argues that it comes down to three things: luck, political acumen, and mythmaking.


Basically, an idiot, Wilhelm II, inherited the Throne in Europe. Both Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Russia were still feudal states.

RE Hungary, with the weakening of the Ottomans over south central Europe, an alliance with Austria becomes necessary, is the short answer.


Nicely posted ...

I can only add that the Russians had been itchin' for a Mediterranean port facility for decades at this point in history ... getting some of the Adriatic coastline within their sphere of influence had been a major priority for them since Catherine's time ... and this would have swung the "balance of power" profoundly in the direction of the Franco/Russian alliance being they'd have landlocked Austria/Hungary ...

Russians are still itchin' to get on the Adriatic ...
 
Nicely posted ...

I can only add that the Russians had been itchin' for a Mediterranean port facility for decades at this point in history ... getting some of the Adriatic coastline within their sphere of influence had been a major priority for them since Catherine's time ... and this would have swung the "balance of power" profoundly in the direction of the Franco/Russian alliance being they'd have landlocked Austria/Hungary ...

Russians are still itchin' to get on the Adriatic ...

Yes, good points. The British also were anxious about Russia, and their 'Great Game' in the 19th and early 20th Century to keep it isolated and surrounded with hostile countries had major consequences by WW I.


This book is worth several Russian history courses by itself.
 
Yes, good points. The British also were anxious about Russia, and their 'Great Game' in the 19th and early 20th Century to keep it isolated and surrounded with hostile countries had major consequences by WW I.
Nicholas II was a British field marshal.
 
I'm still trying to figure out why Wilson sent the Doughboys to save their sorry asses.

Because Wilhelm II was a moron, and attacked the U.S., leaving little choice but to send an army over. Same old story, different day; isolationism never worked, even Jefferson had to lay that fantasy aside as President.
 
They both feared Russia; Russia started a major upgrade and modernization of its military after its defeats at the hands of Japan, which alrmed both Germany and the the Dual Monarchy. Wilhelm in turn had been rattling sabers for the last decade, demanding colonies and generally bullying everybody around him. With both Serbia, Italy on one flank and an expanding Russian military on the other, and a weakening Ottoman satellite cluster to its south and east, and it was pretty much bound to the new German Federation and the Habsburgs. The Habsburgs ruled Austria for hundreds of years. Vienna was their family capital.


Centuries later, their very existence precarious, they were protected by more powerful upstarts solely because their existence in the middle of a fractious Central Europe was the best option available. As one Czech nationalist noted later, if they did not exist, they would need to be invented. When their rule was finally and permanently ended, thinkers ranging from Stefan Zweig to Michael Oakeshott bemoaned the loss, believing that their continued existence, illogical and seemingly unjustifiable as it was, was still to be preferred to their end.


Alongside the Romanovs and the Bourbons, the Habsburg monarchical family can legitimately claim to have made and fashioned much of the world we know today. So what was the Habsburg secret?


In his new history of the Habsburgs, Professor Martyn Rady of University College London argues that it comes down to three things: luck, political acumen, and mythmaking.


Basically, an idiot, Wilhelm II, inherited the Throne in Europe. Both Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Russia were still feudal states.

RE Hungary, with the weakening of the Ottomans over south central Europe, an alliance with Austria becomes necessary, is the short answer.

Wilhelm II, inherited or married into? Was he the grandson of the queen of England. Were not all the monarchies related through marriages?

Just curious and looking for more education on this.
 
Wilhelm II, inherited or married into? Was he the grandson of the queen of England. Were not all the monarchies related through marriages?

Just curious and looking for more education on this.

Jeez, it's hard to even keep their names straight:

Wilhelm II was the son of Prince Frederick William of Prussia and Victoria, Princess Royal. His father was the son of Wilhelm I, German Emperor, and his mother was the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom. Wilhelm's grandfather died in March 1888. His father became Frederick III, but died of cancer in just 99 days. Wilhelm II ascended the throne. In March 1890, he dismissed the German Empire's powerful longtime chancellor, Otto von Bismarck.
Many were cousins at different points in time, yes. Wilhelm II was the son of Wilhelm I, and inherited the 'Holy Roman Empire' on his father's death.


Family tree.


Lots of Brit cousins and so on.

Other Habsburg family lines:

600px-Habsburgenses.JPG


Quite a family, controlled most of Europe at one time or another. The Thirty Years War was pretty much 'The Habsburgs Versus Everybody Else', not a religious war per se as is often claimed; for instance Catholic France opposed Catholic Spain, a Habsburg kingdom, and supported Protestant Princes in the eastern Europe against Habsburgs in Germany and Austria. Many European wars were basically internal family squabbles of one kind or another, usually over marriages and inheritances.

You can think of WW I as the last gasp of Feudalism in Europe, with Wilhelm abdicating and the Romanovs murdered.
 
Last edited:
In the years leading up to WWI, Germany knew it would have to fight a two front war against Russia in the east and France and England in the west. Their whole strategy relied on holding off a Russia long enough to quickly knock out France. Then they could turn all their forces against slow moving Russia. But it had to be fast, because the Germans knew they couldn’t win a long war against the superior resources of the French and British empires.

I think the best they hoped for from Austria-Hungary… and Turkey….was that they could help delay the Russians long enough for this plan to work.
 

"MLADEN JOKSIC: The historian Margaret MacMillan points to a number of striking similarities between today's world and the era just before World War I. These include globalization, a prolonged period of peace among the major powers, and the belief that a full-fledged war between these states is unthinkable, given their interconnectedness and interdependence. MacMillan compares today's relationship between China and America to that between Germany and England a century ago, and she sees today's Middle East as the modern-day equivalent of the Balkans at the beginning of the twentieth century. Do you agree with those parallels? One hundred years later, are we in danger of repeating the same mistakes that led to World War I?


DAVID STEVENSON:
I think this over-simplifies her position. But in any case this question looks dated. I am afraid that an all-out (and therefore nuclear) war between the U.S. and either or both of Russia and China is certainly possible, and that the international situation has become much more dangerous over the last 10 years. Some of the pre-1914 and pre-1939 characteristics are beginning to replicate themselves—rising and declining Powers, recurrent diplomatic crises, contested international alignments, and an incipient arms race. I think the most likely flashpoint that could trigger conflict is not the Middle East but the Baltic and/or the South or East China Seas. The biggest danger is that either or both of Russia and China might use armed force to challenge U.S. alliance commitments to Latvia/Lithuania/Estonia, the Philippines or Japan, miscalculating that the use of force could be localized. I don't think we are that point quite yet, but we are getting disturbingly close to it."

This time it's the Democrats who put an gibbering imbecile in office at a critical point in history and a giggling airhead as VP.

You might like Stevenson's books, they're pretty dense and detailed. Cataclysm: WW I as political Tragedy is an excellent book on WW I. This
 

Forum List

Back
Top