3 ms·

The Austro-Hungarian Empire encompassed several other peoples who chafed under Austro-Hungarian rule, namely Serbs, Slovaks, Rusyns, and Transylvanian Romanians

The Austro-Hungarian Empire encompassed several other peoples who chafed under Austro-Hungarian rule, namely Serbs, Slovaks, Rusyns, and Transylvanian Romanians. You ought to have heard about this, because it was the spark that ignited World War I, after all. In the 19th and early 20th centuries there was grumbling from the peripheries about its riches going to a foreign people in the center, just as one heard from the colonies that other European powers set up overseas.

ginko 6y ago
> The Austro-Hungarian Empire encompassed several other peoples who chafed under Austro-Hungarian rule, namely Serbs, Slovaks, Rusyns, and Transylvanian Romanians. None of these were colonies though. And Serbia wasn't part of the Austrian-Hungarian empire.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  > None of these were colonies though. Some scholars of colonialism have considered them such, especially considering policies by which the Austro-Hungarian Empire gave land in its eastern and southern marches to magnates from Central Europe. > And Serbia wasn't part of the Austrian-Hungarian empire. Serbs were not limited to Ottoman-occupied Serbia or to the nascent independent Serbian state, they also lived (as they continue to today) in Bosnia & Herzegovina, and in Vojvodina. As I said, it was Serbian grievances against Austro-Hungarian rule that sparked World War I when Gavrilo Princip shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo – this is basic schoolbook stuff.
- ChuckNorris89 6y ago
  Oh, silly me, they weren't? Then what do you call the occupation of your country under a foreign power? It's not like the Austrians asked the occupied regions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Serbia, Croatia, Romania: "Hey, are you guys OK with us ruling you? Because if not, we're totally cool about it and we'll just leave you be, no strings attached." In case you missed history class, WW1 started because, among other things, due to Serbian revolts against Austrian rule.
  - ginko 6y ago
    You're applying standards of a modern nation state to a historical multi-ethnic empire. These regions were not occupied but simply under government rule. Of course with the rise of nationalism in the 19th century there were signs and instability starting to show up. The split into an Austrian and a Hungarian part was the first step in satisfying nationalist grievances. Believe me. I'm keenly aware of the causes of WW1. Maybe it's you who isn't aware that Franz Ferdinand himself was planning to federalize the empire[1]. Of course this never took place since he was assassinated by Serbian nationalists and then WW1 and the eventual dissolution of Austria-Hungary happened. And again: 'Colony' in modern parlance generally refers to overseas territories [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_Austria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_Austr...

ginko 6y ago

> The Austro-Hungarian Empire encompassed several other peoples who chafed under Austro-Hungarian rule, namely Serbs, Slovaks, Rusyns, and Transylvanian Romanians. None of these were colonies though. And Serbia wasn't part of the Austrian-Hungarian empire.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> None of these were colonies though. Some scholars of colonialism have considered them such, especially considering policies by which the Austro-Hungarian Empire gave land in its eastern and southern marches to magnates from Central Europe. > And Serbia wasn't part of the Austrian-Hungarian empire. Serbs were not limited to Ottoman-occupied Serbia or to the nascent independent Serbian state, they also lived (as they continue to today) in Bosnia & Herzegovina, and in Vojvodina. As I said, it was Serbian grievances against Austro-Hungarian rule that sparked World War I when Gavrilo Princip shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo – this is basic schoolbook stuff.
ChuckNorris89 6y ago
Oh, silly me, they weren't? Then what do you call the occupation of your country under a foreign power? It's not like the Austrians asked the occupied regions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Serbia, Croatia, Romania: "Hey, are you guys OK with us ruling you? Because if not, we're totally cool about it and we'll just leave you be, no strings attached." In case you missed history class, WW1 started because, among other things, due to Serbian revolts against Austrian rule.
- ginko 6y ago
  You're applying standards of a modern nation state to a historical multi-ethnic empire. These regions were not occupied but simply under government rule. Of course with the rise of nationalism in the 19th century there were signs and instability starting to show up. The split into an Austrian and a Hungarian part was the first step in satisfying nationalist grievances. Believe me. I'm keenly aware of the causes of WW1. Maybe it's you who isn't aware that Franz Ferdinand himself was planning to federalize the empire[1]. Of course this never took place since he was assassinated by Serbian nationalists and then WW1 and the eventual dissolution of Austria-Hungary happened. And again: 'Colony' in modern parlance generally refers to overseas territories [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_Austria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_Greater_Austr...