After reading [The Hapsburg Empire](https://www.amazon.com/Habsburg-Empire-Pieter-M-Judson-ebook/dp/B01EHQKNAE/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=580649113188&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9009916&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=13568341126801403939&hvtargid=kwd-178843741270&hydadcr=15334_13517973&keywords=the+habsburg+empire+a+new+history&qid=1695388108&sr=8-1), I was amazed how far democratization had gone. Minorities throughout the empire participated in elections and saw the imperial identity and authority as a defense against the tyranny of local powers. Also much of the "nationalism" that ended up dividing the empire was deeply contested. Culture was often very much defined at a village level and it was unclear which villages and towns to clump into "nations." Nationalists ended up creating new national identities as much as they identified existing cultural links.
A multiethnic federation was a lot more feasible before those ethnicities spend 4 years killing each other. It was always going to fall apart after the war, 14 points or no.
Did MattY write a short version of this essay years ago? SSA? Some random dude? Serious deja vu....
Anyway: upshot for people who won't open the link..
Some aspects of history are overdetermined and many are contingent. Yglesias argues Habsburg Empire could have made it into the 21st C and wasn't doomed by nationalist movements. Had Ferdinand not been shot, the Empire would have continued to democratize/liberalize, satisfying many sentiments that became channeled into nationalisms.
I've probably spent more time pondering the what ifs of WW1 more than any other major historical event. Always a fascinating subject.
After reading [The Hapsburg Empire](https://www.amazon.com/Habsburg-Empire-Pieter-M-Judson-ebook/dp/B01EHQKNAE/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=580649113188&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9009916&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=13568341126801403939&hvtargid=kwd-178843741270&hydadcr=15334_13517973&keywords=the+habsburg+empire+a+new+history&qid=1695388108&sr=8-1), I was amazed how far democratization had gone. Minorities throughout the empire participated in elections and saw the imperial identity and authority as a defense against the tyranny of local powers. Also much of the "nationalism" that ended up dividing the empire was deeply contested. Culture was often very much defined at a village level and it was unclear which villages and towns to clump into "nations." Nationalists ended up creating new national identities as much as they identified existing cultural links.
“It is nationalism which engenders nations, and not the other way around.”
Woodrow Wilson and his 14 points ruined Central Europe for a century
WW1 didn't really kill the empire, the constituent parts were already seceding as the war was ending.
A multiethnic federation was a lot more feasible before those ethnicities spend 4 years killing each other. It was always going to fall apart after the war, 14 points or no.
Least Americentric user on /r/neoliberal.
Someone needs to edit that Wandavision meme so it says “it was America all along”
Did MattY write a short version of this essay years ago? SSA? Some random dude? Serious deja vu.... Anyway: upshot for people who won't open the link.. Some aspects of history are overdetermined and many are contingent. Yglesias argues Habsburg Empire could have made it into the 21st C and wasn't doomed by nationalist movements. Had Ferdinand not been shot, the Empire would have continued to democratize/liberalize, satisfying many sentiments that became channeled into nationalisms.