Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive 2

Dashes

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Pages moved. Ucucha 15:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Austria–Hungary → Austria-Hungary — The right writing of compound placenames is with hyphen (like Bosnia-Herzegovina, Czecho-Slovakia, Winston-Salem, Brandýs nad Labem-Stará Boleslav). It is conjunction, not disjunction. See also Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 3. ŠJů (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Coat of arms of Austria–Hungary → Coat of arms of Austria-Hungary
 * Military of Austria–Hungary → Military of Austria-Hungary
 * Military Merit Cross (Austria–Hungary) → Military Merit Cross (Austria-Hungary)
 * Military Merit Medal (Austria–Hungary) → Military Merit Medal (Austria-Hungary)
 * Wound Medal (Austria–Hungary) → Wound Medal (Austria-Hungary)
 * List of counts of Austria–Hungary → List of counts of Austria-Hungary
 * List of princes of Austria–Hungary → List of princes of Austria-Hungary
 * Ethnic and religious composition of Austria–Hungary → Ethnic and religious composition of Austria-Hungary

The incosistency of the dashes has been addressed already. However, this inconsistency has led to unnecessary links to unexistent pages. The Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 or Ausgleich link appears twice as a non-existant page since it has a dash instead of a hyphen between the words. The hyphenated version exists, however. I would believe that it would be somewhat easier for navigation to have consistency between the links. Possibly just having the word Ausgleich for the link, since it will redirect anyway to the pertinent page. Mercadoa (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The right writing is Austria-Hungary and Austro-Hungarian with "-" (hyphen). While the mutual relation between Austria and Hungary should be expressed by dash (train Austria–Hungary can go from Vienna to Budapest, Austro–Hungarian treaty is a treaty between Austria and Hungary etc., a compound name of a conurbation or a compound state should use hyphen which expresses joining (just like in Brandýs nad Labem-Stará Boleslav or Czecho-Slovakia, see also Hyphen War, or Bosnia-Herzegovina). Austro-Hungarian border is the outer border of Austria-Hungary while Austro–Hungarian border is the border between Austria and Hungary etc. --ŠJů (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See also Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 3. --ŠJů (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears from Wikipedia articles that the use of dash instead of hyphen in this compound name is a Hungarian speciality only. It can have some historical background. The article Kaiserlich und königlich alleges that Hungarian nacionalist politicians requested to use the word "und" (= and) instead of a hyphen in the phrase Kaiserlich und königlich. But even Hungarian nationalists didn't request a dash :-)


 * Who and why was changed the article name from Austria-Hungary to Austria–Hungary? Was the first Renata3 on 21:06, 18 September 2008? I see no discussion before it. Only a link to WP:DASH but there is talk about disjunction and no example of compound name and no conjunction. WP:DASH lists no example of a compound name with a dash similar to Austria–Hungary. Conjuction is indicated by hyphens. Compound names can be closed, hyphenated or open in English, as well as in most of other European languages. A dash is intended not for compound names but for disjunction of two independent names (words) wich don't create a new one word by such use. We can have football match Austria–Hungary (i. e. between Austria and Hungary), but not one country named Austria–Hungary.


 * See also
 * List of double placenames (many other examples with a hyphen)
 * What are some US city names that contain a hyphen or an apostrophe or any other special character?
 * Czecho-Slovakia or Czechoslovakia ("With or without a hyphen, the name of the country was modeled on the name of the Habsburg monarchy designed in 1867 – Austria-Hungary.")
 * --ŠJů (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename as nominated, replacing the dash with a hyphen. I believe the nominator correctly states this case. The dash is being misused in this case per WP:DASH. If we are referring to one unified country, it should be a hyphen. We would only use a dash if both Austria and Hungary were separate entities, which of course in this context they are not. Fully support. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as usage, reflecting the normal distinction between hyphens and dashes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Conjunction is intended here, and that's done with a hyphen, not a dash. Jafeluv (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Reywas92 Talk 11:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

THE ETHNIC & MINORITY RIGHTS
The first European minority rights were proclamed and enacted by the revolutionary parliament of Hungray in 1849. The second was created in Switzerland. Austria-Hungary was more liberal with its ethnic minorities than other European countries. Before the WW1, no other European coontry know the minority/ethnic rights. The German law, English law French Italian Spanish legal systems did not knew the category of minority rights in pre WW1 era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested to read those rights and see a reference to it. In 1949 when the revolution was losing ground, an appeal to minorities was a last ditch effort to save Hungary. And when we consider the opinions of its leading figures (read below) it's easy to question the sincerity of those right. For one, the failure of Hungarian revolution resulted in failure to appeal to minorities. Lajos Kosuth, the leader of the revolution with Slovak roots, treated minorities with contempt. I quote: Kossuth considered himself an ethnic Hungarian and stated that there was no Slovak nationality (also: "nation," "ethnic nation," "ethnicity") in the Kingdom of Hungary. ^ "Wherever we look in Hungary, there is no entity that would constitute a Slovak nationality/nation." ("Bármerre tekintünk is Magyarországon, sehol sem látunk anyagot ily tót nemzetiségre."); A. B. [Lajos Kossuth], "Visszapillantás a szláv mozgalmakra." Pesti Hírlap, 26 June 1842. ^ "Kossuth rejected the very idea of a Slovak nation [...]."; Piotr Stefan Wandycz, The Price of Freedom: A History of East Central Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present. 2001. ^ "Though partly Slovak by birth, he [Lajos Kossuth] denied the existence of a Slovak nation [...]."; A[lan] J[ohn] P[ercivale] Taylor, From Napoleon to Lenin: Historical Essays. 1966. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Skala (talk • contribs) 12:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As for how liberal Hungarian policy toward minority rights was: In the years 1896 and 1908 560 Slovaks were tried and sentenced for using their native tongue in governmental offices. Slovak workers in government were required to Magyarize their names. When a British historian, Seton-Watson, on his travels through Hungary 1906 asked in Pecs where he may find Slovaks, the reply was that there are a few left deep in the mountains. Clearly the tough Magyarization measures were having the desired impact of almost wiping out Slovak ethnicity, if at least on census ballot. The link to the article in Slovak press: http://spravy.pravda.sk/slovaci-dajte-si-pozor-na-scitacich-komisarov-foe-/sk_domace.asp?c=A100725_112909_sk_domace_p58 Vladimir Skala (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

For better udnerstand: Skala You must read the article of the two and very different type of nationalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism, the ethnic type or "race-based" nationalism is a hotbed of nazism. The ethnic nationalism appeared in Hungary only in the 1930s. But the 1930s is not our debated era. If you study the development of Hungarian nationalism, you can see, that it (and its ideas) was constructed by the higher nobility of Hungary, who weren't Hungarians by the terms of ethnicity. The Noblemen know their complex ethnic background, because they knew well their lineage from noble-almanachs rather than the less educated/non-educated peasants and common people. Therefore their only prospect was to follow the western type so called civic nationalism which didn't based on race. In the late 1700s and early 1800s ,after and under the aegis and appear of Panslavism the local slavic nations developed their ethnic nationalism with the invention of "slavic race". It was true for Romanians who dreamed that, their ancestors were the great ancient romans instead of their shepherd nomad ancestors. It was the main difference between the Hungarian nationalism and the nationalism of some minority groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.88.254 (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

About Seton-Watson story: Pécs is a south-western Hungarian town. The population of Pécs was German Croat Serb and Hungarian. It's no wonder, that the local answerer couldn't know more about Slovaks. Ironically: it might that the answerer wasn't also an ethnic Hungarian :))))

To insinuate that the Slovak brand of nationalism was dangerous because it could lead to violent, racist regimes and to claim that Hungarian "civic" nationalism was civil, that is an insult. Minorities were fighting for their very right to exist - being denied to them by Hungary. You can pad that with as much euphemism as you desire. In the end, it's the fault of Hungarian policy that the kingdom split. Panslavism is the bogeyman that you may blame break up of Hungary on. The reality is that non-Hungarian minorities would had no reason to tear away from Hungary had they felt safe and respected in it. They clearly did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Skala (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There weren't held any democratic plebiscites/referendums about the disputed and new borders. The inhabitant minorities weren't asked. Without referendums, we don't know exactly what was their oppinion in 1920.--Moneycreator (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Racist ideology & the role of Panslav factor in the outbreak of ww1
Again, the world's first race-based identity and ideology was the panslavism. Hungarians were a receptive nation (majority of the Hungarian higher aristocracy was not Hungarian by the means of ethnicity, Majority of the political and military leaders of Hungarian revolution of 1848 were not Hungarians by the terms of ethnicity, but they considered themselves as Hungarians. The slavic identity was the opposite. Slavic nations believed that they are descendants of common forefathers, they believed that they are racialy clears. Thus the race-based identities and societies were exclusionary. See: Genocides Ethnic cleanisings and forced deportations against Hungarian and German speaking populations after ww1 and ww2. However the romantic naive panslavic beliefs and myths collapsed in scientific levels (remember : population genetics of 1990s and 2000s). These false nationalist beliefs survived in less educated common people until this day.

Panslavism had the direct interest to ruin the status quo of Europe. The Black Hand society was a state-supported terror organization of the Serbian government. Panslavism and slavic nationalism had a key-role in the extension of a local conflict to a real World War. The supporter of panslavism, Tzar of Russia Nicholas II would had been the first Hitler, he started progroms genocides against Jews before ww1. It's awfull to imagine what would happend with non-slavic nations if he had won the war. However Tzarism couldn't survive the ww1. The new Soviet regime was strongly internationalist. After the WW1, the collapse and lack of a great slavic nationalist Empire (Russian Empire) prevented a large-scale new tragedy in the European continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.183.192 (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment on editing out "although it was far less violent" remark and adding Rusyn
I chose to edit out the remark that stated that Magyarization under lex Aponyi was less violent than in the governments of countries with Hungarian minorities after WW1. First, there was no reference to this remark which made it sound as though it was an opinion. Second, how can one truly claim that inter-war Czechoslovakia, a democratic country, (as wrought as it was with minority issues) handled Hungarian minority in a more violent manner? The standard of living of Hungarians in Czechoslovakia was higher than in Hungary (P.R. Magocsi). Czechoslovakia respected its minorities and did not close down educational facilities and try to force minority languages out of its country.

I also added Rusyn schools, because they were by far the most targeted by Magyarizators. This was the smallest stateless minority in Hungary, so it offered the least resistance. Also, it was wrought by internal rifts where some favored a pro-Russian orientation and others a pro-Ukrainian one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Skala (talk • contribs) 10:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Czechoslovakia respected its minorities" see for example "Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia" even if you don't talk about the expulsions Estimates of casualties range between 20,000 and 270,000[5] people, depending on source.[6] meaning in Czechoslovakia there was mass murder of at the minimum tens of thousands of minorities in peacetime. I wouldn't call the mass murder of minorities "Czechoslovakia respected its minorities", also the expulsion of millions is quite minor when compared to mass murder. What do you think of this aspect? . Hobartimus (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you would continue your quotation it'd state: These casualties include violent deaths and suicides, deaths in "internment camps"[6] and natural causes.[7] The joint Czech-German commission of historians stated in 1996 following numbers: The deaths caused by violence and abnormal living conditions amount approximately to 10 000 persons killed. OK, 10,000 is certainly not a small number. My opinion of Benes Decrees is that as a standalone event it is a gross violation of human rights not just minority rights. But let's take it into a larger context. A war that cost the lives of more than a 70 million people was fought on the pretext of pan-germanism. Many nations, including Czechoslovakia, were conquered. Policy of ethnic homogenization was seen as means to prevent any future conflicts and revisionism. It was the small evil used to prevent the larger one. Also, most of these deaths were of sympathizers of Hitler's regime. I caught a headline recently of (I believe it was) an international court denying reparations to Hungarians and Germans affected by Benes Decrees, that pretty much sums up the international opinion on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Skala (talk • contribs) 11:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Again international court? where? Which? International Court exist only in Hague Nederland. It's lie that international court denying reparations to Hungarians and Germans affected by Benes Decrees. Dear Slovak, the policy of ethnic homogenization = Typical Nazi idea. Don't forget, Your independent Slovakia was born as a Nazi state in ww2. Stalin (who was Gregorian non-slav) using the power of panslavism killed 2X more people in peacetime than Nazis in wartime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.4 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Correction, not the international court, but the EU Court of Human rights denied reparations to Sudetenland Germans for confiscation of their property. So Dear Magyar, quit pestering the discussion with pointless references to panslavism and Nazis. Your Hungary was also a Nazi ally and tell me how did Stalin use "power" of panslavism to kill people. That is bigotry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Skala (talk • contribs) 17:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, Czechoslovakia didn't like minorities, CZ. favored the idea of French style nation state of late 18th century. Czechoslovakia similar to Jugoslavia based on panslavist ideas and myths. And Don't forget, the Panslavism was the world's first racial based (RACIST) ideology. It determined the "Slavic Race", which proved a naive dream in th light of modern Y DNA and mt.DNA researches which proved that the Slavic-speaking nations are genetically very very heterogenous. The Nazi Pan-Germanism collapsed after the WW2, but the Pan-slavist ideology is virulent until this day. Slavic is language group only. But this knowledge is less known for less educated people in Slavic countries. They still believe in "slavic race". (Just read the facebook and youtube comments from slavic countries) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Upper Hungary (present-day Slovakia) was a less developed region of Hungary with backward infrastructure. (Read old economic statistics of pre WW1 Hungary) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Present day Slovakia had about equally developed infrastructure and industry with the rest of Hungary: Seventeen percent of all Hungarian industry that had developed in Slovakia during the late 19th century also fell to the [Czechoslovak] republic. That falls on 15% of Hungarian territory. Engineering and mining industries have a long tradition in Slovakia and 19th century saw the introduction of chemical industry. In fact, I remember reading article by P.R. Magocsi that stated the very opposite (Slovakia was more industrially developed than the rest of Hungary), but I don't have the book with me, so I'm not going to use it as a reference. If you could provide those statistics, I'd be happy to peruse them.

Before WW1, the territory of present-day Slovakia had only mining industry (like Africa Asia or the third world) there weren't serious industry like the machinery industry or electric industry. Itself Budapest had more than 50% of all industry of Hungarian kingdom before the ww1. Until this day, the average wages & salaries and general infrastructure of Slovakia are lower than Hungarian. It's enough to travel to Slovakia.

Reply to the above: I teach geography and as part of the course I teach, I delve into industry and its development. Slovakia, just like the rest of the Hungarian kingdom was primarily agrarian, but comparatively it was much more industrially developed, because of its mining and metallurgy industries. To compare Slovakia to Africa is ludicrous. Bare resources were not just stripped away from Slovak mines and exported. They were processed in its burgeoning metallurgy industries. By 19th century chemical industry makes appearance along the Vah basin. I don't know the state of Hungarian infrastructure. In eastern Slovakia it's pretty bad, this also reflects the uneven development in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Skala (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

According to your opinion, Africa and South america are the most industrialized countries, because the most mines located on these continents. Don't forget: Mining and agriculture are not considered as parts of industry in every language.--Moneycreator (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As for panslavism, to say ti is racist? It is certainly misguided, but let's figure context into it. Panslavism was borne out of repression and discrimination of Slavic minorities in German empires of Central Europe (including Balkans) and later it was used by Russia as ideological buttress for its expansion into the region. It did not promote any such ideas as racial supremacy and conquest of other (less-developed) peoples. Panslavism was never the kind of threat that pangermanism was. And don't take virtual banter too seriously. Just look at the real conflicts that Ukraine has with Russia, or past conflicts in Jugoslavia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladimir Skala (talk • contribs) 08:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not a real reasoning. A well-known fact: German nationalism was born under the pressure France, during Napoleonic times. Hungarian nationalism was developed under the Habsburg's pressure. Panslavism wasn't dangerous? Perhabs for slavs. MAny panslavic leader questioned the right of Existence og the Hungarian state. Because geographically, the existence of Hungary split the slavic race into Southern and Western slavs etc...

In the eighteenth century, the Czechs were already beginning to apply the term „Central Europe” to their own territory and the idea of Pan-Slavism[1] began to take hold. Until this time, throughout many centuries, there was peace within Hungary, where peoples of different languages, religious backgrounds and cultures lived without the expression of any anti-Hungarian feelings but, as Pan-Slavism began to spread, hatred and animosity took hold. Karl MarxXE "Karl Marx" said: „Pan-Slavism is not only a goal for the unification of the Slav people but it is also a goal to destroy a thousand years of history in Europe. In the interest of this, we have to erase Turkey and half of Germany from the maps of Europe. When Pan-Slavism has reached this goal then the Slavs will begin to subjugate Europe. Europe has only two choices, to accept Pan-Slavism or to conquer Russia and eradicate the center of Pan-Slavism.”[2]  It was Pan-Slavism which caused the anti-Hungarian feelings which have existed since that time and have been increasing in intensity.

Frantisek Palacky, the Czech historian, stated that the Hungarians were an obstacle to the unification of the northern and Southern Slavs. In 1919, the Czechs supported the idea of creating a corridor through Hungarian territory to join Czechoslovakia to Yugoslavia, which was only possible with the disintegration of Hungary. Fortunately this corridor was not created, although Hungary was divided.--Moneycreator (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Name meaning
The translation in this statement doesn't sound right: "The Monarchy bore the name internationally of "Österreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie" (on decision by Franz Joseph I in 1868), which in full meant "The Kingdoms and Lands Represented in the Imperial Council and the Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.179.192 (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Right. "Osterreichisch-Ungarische Monarchie" means "Austro-Hungarian Monarchy," as you might imagine.  The full formal name in German was Die im Reichsrat vertretenen Königreiche und Länder und die Länder der Heiligen Ungarischen Stephanskrone.  Ought to be fixed, I guess. john k (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
Coat of Arms with Eagle was used 1867–1915, "dualistic" was used only in 1915 - 1918, thus "Eagle" was better known and longer time used. --Yopie (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No hisotry section?
Maybe its existence was too brief to merit s History section. But I am not even clear on who the emperors/kings were. Am I right that Franz Josef was the only ever sovereign of the Austro-Hungarian empire? if so, shouldn't it say so, explicitly, somewhere 9and close to the top)? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, actually - Franz Joseph's grand-nephew Karl succeeded him in 1916, and reigned for the final two years of the Dual Monarchy's existence. At any rate, much of the article concerns history in various ways, but you're right that there ought to be a more explicit section on the history - it is currently rather lacking a narrative. john k (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you don't mind my saying, I am wrong because the article only mentiones this at the bottom and in an unclear context - articles on other empires or monarchies often have lists of emperors or monarchs or at least dynasties with links to other articles. Now, am I right that the K&K had only two sovereigns? I would again say, I think this is notable enough to put in the lead especially given the brevity of poor Karl's reign. I did not make the comment to pick a fight, just to suggest what to me is an obvious area in need of improvement, although I lack the knowledge to improve it. indeed, I commented as an uninformed reader who came to the article to learn about something I know little about, and I found the article pretty confusing. There is clearly a lot of solid content here, but it is not presented in a way that (in my opinion) is friendly to a diverse audience. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't criticizing you, and I have no vested interest in the article. It isn't very good. I lack the time to do much to improve it in any kind of coherent way.  At any rate, yes, from 1867-1918 there were only two rulers of the Dual Monarchy.  Of course, one can argue that the Ausgleich of 1867 did not represent the creation of a new state, but the creation of new constitutional arrangements in an already existing state; there were four emperors of Austria who were also kings of Hungary, but that period is dealt with in Austrian Empire, while the pre-1804 period, which saw the same territories in personal union under a monarch ruling under numerous different titles, is at Habsburg Monarchy. john k (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (I didn't think you were criticizing me). Are you satisfied that the articl is clar about this or should this content be incorporated into the article? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Government form
According to all real Encyclopedias : Austria-Hungary was constitutional monarchy. Absolute monarchies existed only in orthodox countries: like Balkan and Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.111.254 (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabrit03chisrich#page/2/mode/1up Austria Hungary is a constitutional Monarchy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.100.11 (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Britannica Encyclopedia 1911
Free online contents about Austria-Hungary http://www.archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabrit03chisrich#page/2/mode/2up http://www.archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabrit03chisrich#page/2/mode/2up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.100.11 (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Austrian constitution can be read at Austrian Constitution of 1867. Hungary had for centuries an unwritten, "historical" constitution since the Golden Bull of 1222 the same way as the UK has it even today. Depending on the era, the royal power was rarely absolute. Under the Habsburgs, the permanent resurrections of the Hungarian nobility were about the stubborn opposition to the strive of the Habsburgs for centralisation in the framework of an absolute monarchy. The attitude of the Hungarian nobility was about the same to absolute monarchy as that of the Poles. In 1848, the "April laws" transformed the structure of governenance into that of a modern constitutional monarchy, which, after the era of absolutis between 1849-1860, was one of the basic elements of the Austro-Hungarian Constitutional Compromise of 1867. Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A-H Empire was not the only multinational state in 1867
Great Britain was also multinational. (Irish Scottish English etc...) English suppressed their language and culture. The other multinational state was France. Only 50% of population of France was French in 1850. The local identities of these ethnic minorities were stronger than french identity in 1870 yet. These minority languages based on different grammar and words. They weren't closer to french than Italian or Spanish language. French nationalism and forced assimilation grew the ratio of French mother tongue and identity from 50% to 91% in 1900.

Russian Empire was similarly multiethnic country too.


 * You seem to be using multiple different IP addresses to edit this passage, so how are we to know if it is one editor or not? Please sign you posts so that we can tell who you are, and ideally sign up for an account if you are using multiple computers. Thanks for your consideration. Peregrine981 (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, Thank you for your contribution, but the article does not claim that Austria-Hungary was the only multinational state. So, not exactly sure what you are getting at? Peregrine981 (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Flag
Why is the naval ensign used and not the civil ensign? --131.111.184.8 (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Because there was not civil ensign.--Yopie (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently there was, since it's been put on the page :P Incidentally a brief check reveals numerous references to the Austro-Hungarian civil ensign in books (e.g. the Flag Research Center's bulletin which says "the arms of Hungary were added ... to the civil ensign in 1869" --131.111.184.8 (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

World war 1
the part on the final part of the war exagerated very much the role of franch and british army in the battle. The wikipedia page on this argument si more clear about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Piave_River. Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.61.206.75 (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The foreign divisions were not so important, but the munition and war-material support was vital for Italy, because the Italian economy was close to the collapse.--Lbombardiers (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-independent Austria
It was not a blind reverting. Austria became semi-independent as well in 1867, It was a personalunion. There were mutual departments, Austria also changed, it shared the "semi-independency". The ruler was mutual, Dual Monarchy. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hungary was semi-dependent of Habsburg Monarchy, because foreign affairs and command of the armed forces were the sole prerogative of the monarch. Only the Emperor could declare war. This is what the dependency of Hungary consisted of. It is weird to say that Habsburg Austria was not independent, because the A-H Emperor was the former Austrian Emperor(Iaaasi (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

There were Hungarian ministers in the mutual departments. Is it full independence for Austria? Hungarians governed Austrian cases.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Fact check on Austria's "over 700 years"?
This sentence doesn't parse right, did somebody tamper with the numbers? It doesn't seem logical to make 700 years sound so notably less than 900 years. Further, does "Austria" only date back to the 1800s?

While what was left of Austria had been a single unit for over 700 years, it was united only by loyalty to the Habsburgs. By comparison, Hungary had been a nation and a state for over 900 years.

Request fact-check from someone who knows Austrian history better than I. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Austria HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Duchy of Austria was the real ancestor of Austria, but original and real so-called "Austria" weren't much bigger than present-day Austria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Austria--Burzsoahatalom (talk) 08:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)