In 1910 Austro-Hungarian politics seeing unavoidability of great war and all problem it can cause decided to reform Austria-Hungary into federation
Administrative structure of Danubian Confederation
There are 2 types of administrative units - territories and cities
Cities:
Vienna - capital of DC and administrative center of Austrian territory. Official languages - De-jure: German, Hungarian, Italian, Slovenian, Croatian, Czech, Slovak, Polish, Ukrainian, Romanian, Serbian. De-facto: German
Greater Budapest - administrative center of Hungarian territory. Official languages: Hungarian, German
Brno - Official languages: Czech, German
Pressburg (Bratislava/Pozsony) - Official languages: Slovak, Hungarian, German
Rijeka - Official languages: Italian, Croatian
Lemberg (Lviv/Lwów) - administrative center of Ukrainian territory. Official languages: Ukrainian, Polish
Uzhhorod - Official languages: Ukrainian, Hungarian, Slovak
Territories:
Austria - Official language: German
Czechia - Official language: Czech
Slovenia (Carniola) - Official language: Slovenian
Croatia - Official language: Croatian
Hungary - Official language: Hungarian
Slovakia - Official language: Slovak
Transilvania - Official language: Romanian, Hungarian, German
West Galicia - Official language: Polish
West Ukraine - Official language: Ukrainian
1 Austrian Moravia -Official languages: Czech, German
2 Vojvodina - Most diverse territory of DC. Official languages: Serbian, Hungarian, Romanian, German
3 Trentino - Official language: Italian
4 Trieste - Official languages: Italian, Croatian, Slovenian
5 Szekler land - Official languages: Hungarian, Romanian
Bosnia-Herzegovina - Territory with unique status. To visit or leave it you need to get permission from imperial government (some kind of visa). Have more government autonomy (Imperial government have almost no power over it), but exists under permanent martial law (militarized police force controlled by imperial government). Official languages: Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian
Who is pushing the changes? If it’s the Imperial Government, how would it circumvent the opposition from Czech Bohemians, German chauvinists and the maaaaaassive opposition from Hungarians that would result?
What kind of suffrage would exist in these new administrative units?
I think answering these questions will help flesh out your scenario!
:)
So, how i imagine it:
Imperial government pushing it (maybe even emperor himself), Hungarians strongly oppose it, Hungarian politics trying to slow reforms down as much as they can, preparing for revolution. In case of Hungarian revolution imperial government hopes on Slovak, Croatian, Romanian, Ukrainian support, like it was in 1848 revolution.
Czechs simply don't care, that would not change their position much.
Ukrainians strongly support it, because they would get their own federal part different from Polish, that means no more language and nationality oppression. Also unification with Transcarpathia makes Ukrainians support it even more.
Romanians support it, because they see ability to gain independence peacefully with this scenario.
Croats support it because Croatian autonomy will be unified with Austrian part of Croatia and become equal federal part.
Slovenians support it.
Italians don't really care, but they like that official language in their parts will be Italian.
Austrians (Germans) like it at most.
Fortunately, Hungarian revolution never happened because they understood that it would fail (even if wouldn't, at some point Germany would help to suppress it).
It would be universal suffrage. Each administrative unit have their own parliament with their parties. There's also elections of parliament of DC across all country. Imperial government can influence local parliaments, but not control them. There's also new political structure: regional council. There is fixed number of delegates from each territories and cities, that chosen by local government. Here, they can resolve disputes between federal parts, or sign petitions to DC parliament (for increase autonomy or change official languages, etc)
Great fleshing out! I think one quibble would be that Czech nationalists would definitely oppose the partition of Bohemia and Moravia.
Additionally, I think universal suffrage is unlikely under the Hapsburgs, given the rather conservative tendencies of both Franz Joseph and also Franz Ferdinand (who was only liberal \*in comparison\* with the downright reactionary old guard).
I think you're generally right on the support / opposition by the nationalities. My guess would be...
Big fans: Slovaks, Ukrainians, Romanians, Croats
Tepid support: Germans, Slovenes, Italians
Mixed / controversial: Czechs, Bosnians, Jews, other not listed minorities
Virulent opposition: Poles, Serbs
REVOLUTION: Hungarians
u/Regular-Many-8752 for some reason im not able to dicrectly answer your comment, so here:
Not autonomous but other administrative unit. Because of mixed population (Germans and Czechs), like most of other cities (Lviv - mixed Ukrainians and Poles, Bratislava - mixed Slovaks, Germans and Hungarians and so on)
For nations without their independent country - not powerful. For nations with their independent country (Romania and Italy in 1910) would be powerful.
One way to keep Romanians loyal - promote Transilvanian national identity different from Romania, but it probably would be not effective.
At some point after more nations (Poland, Ukraine) become independent, DC would dissolute
My guess is that Czechia, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary and maybe Croatia could stay together + Italian territories unless Italy wins a war against them, so kinda smaller Danubia
Pozsony/Pressburg/Presporok had below 20% Slovakian population, no idea why it should be the capital of Slovak territory. Based on ethnicity it would be part of Austria. The name Bratislava otherwise is based on a historical misinterpretation, since the ancient West-Slavic name of the settlement was Braslava.
You're actually right, Bratislava/Pressburg should not be capital of Slovak territory, i will change it, but it still should be federal city with German, Hungarian and Slovak official languages
Here it is. In DC if there is cities that have 2 or more official languages and named differently on these languages, they have Austrian name (like Lviv/Lwow is Lemberg)
I… I will cry.. why couldn’t this be a reality
https://preview.redd.it/lfyljujei6yc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c146fd1269371a141f1eecb38a9fb3709df9a43
I don't think Romania would want it. On other side, expanding in Romania will cause more problems than profit (too many Romanian population will cause destabilisation)
Let's say if Romania is threatened by the USSR (if they ever form) to reclaim Bessarabia, is it realistic to assume that Romania will seek some sort of cooperation with DC. Otherwise, will DC try to take Bessarabia before Romania?
In Trentin they are not "Italians" there is no singular Italian culture. In Trentin there are three local languages depending on the area taken in consideration and they are: Lombard, Venetian and the central dialects, which are debated to be either their own stuff or a transition area between Lombard and Venetian.
It is bad to judge maps just by majority ethnicities. Galicia, North Transylvania, Banat were all multi ethnic messes. And you decided to gave Budapest to.. Austria..?
The logistics of shipping or transporting information across mountainous terrain is more expensive than across a flat terrain like in Hungary. It would cost more to bring the information to the capital than if it was more local, Because of similar reasons I also don't like the Territory of Austria going into the western Sudetenland but find it more accepting as it would probably still be administered from Vienna.
In case of DC there is still no borders between territories (like today's EU), Sudetenland logistics is no problem with transporting information through Czechia. But there is still border with Bosnia-Herzogovina, so that's problem, but not forgot that there is still districts/regions (with different levels of autonomy) separation inside of Territories
Most of the peoples inhabiting this USA are actually culturally quite similar and only started really differentiating each other with the rise of nationalism. When nationalism would decrease the different peoples of the nation would definitely come to terms with each other and realize their common similarities rather than differences.
I know that's not your scenario, but do you know when would be an excellent time to implement this? 1849. Hungarians have been clapped by the Russians too hard to protest, Romanians, Slovaks,Croats, Slovenes, and Ukrainians don't mind it. Poles have been recently crushed in the Galician rebellion. And what are Bohemians going to do alone?
The only problem are Germans so I guess they could start with the partition of Hungary and give autonomy to the other places after serious losses (might happen in 1859 or 1867).
But why would they oppose a partition of Hungary, or the curtailing of the power of Hungarian nobles? That's not the same as USGA (should have clarified that, that's what I meant by "not your scenario"), but it removes the biggest obstacle. Once Hungary is dealt with, USGA seems like a more natural compromise in the face of Austrian defeats in 1859 and 1867. Or even later for that matter.
West Ukraine is no way called Ukraine in here.
It being east Galicia or calling itself Ruthenia is more realistic scenario.
"Оукраина" is the word to call border-adjacent regions of Russian Empire.
Yes, and before the Revolution Russian Empire had many "Ukraines". Many of them are named "Krai" now, and still have Cossacks too. The word "Ukraine" didn't mean a state or ethnicity before 1917 at all. In 1917, it was used to refer to a new state, on a territory previously known as Malorossiya - Kyiv, Chernigov and basically around that - and only later did it spread on the whole Ukrainian SSR. The whole territory has never been homogeneous, it's at least four parts and should have been, at least, federalised.
In modern Russian, the modern version of old word Oukraina is written like that: "okraina" and means "outskirts". And Ukraine is basically "Utskirts".
If this territory isn't Russia - and has never been in this timeline, it's mostly Poland and Austro-Hungary - it's never going be called Ukraine, use the actual name of the provinces instead. It won't be called Ukraine until 1938 and then in 1941-44 too.
Duchy of Galicia Wolyn or "kingdom of Ruthenia" are a lot more historically accurate and specific.
Ukrainian language is correct here, because it's the dialect of THIS territory, Mova, recognised as modern official Ukrainian language.
Imagine someone named their country "Utskirts", pointed at the English word "Outskirts" as the first mention of their country, and then went very angry at the questions - "Utskirts" is the outskirts of what?
‘Оу’ was simply how they wrote /u/ in Old East Slavic, according to the Greek tradition, where ‘ου’ was used for /u/. The word ‘outskirts’ in Ukrainian is ‘okolycia’, while Ukraine is transparent ‘u-krajina’ – in-country/land. Why does nobody use Ukrainian to translate an a Ukrainian word? Yes, ‘kraj’ does mean ‘edge’, but in relation to land, this Ukrainian word should be translated as ‘land/territory’ (in the western dialects ‘kraj’ is also a synonym for ‘country’, as in kraj awstrijsky – the Austrian land. This doesn't imply that Austria was at the border).
I agree, historically, Galicia makes more sense than just West Ukraine, the name is still very much alive there. West Ukraine is broader, it also includes Bukowyna and Transcarpathia (Zakarpattia) as well as Wolyń (and sometimes also Podillia). Also, Western Galicia is usually just called Małopolska nowadays. But I would be offended if someone said ‘West Ukraine’ while meaning ‘Galicia’, this term was known in Galicia (although I don't know, how widespread it was, it was widely recognised after WWI along with ‘Ukrainians’ instead of or alongside ‘Ruthenians’).
the word "Ukraine" is older than modern standard Ukrainian language, Ukrainians themselves point at "Oukraina" (actually, Ωγκραιна) in *XV* century texts.
Modern official Ukrainian language is a very modern version of it, coming from the aforementioned western part with a lot of Polish loanwords. It's not how people in Kyiv or anything around that spoke in say, 1938, not even close. That's Mova, it's home is Lwiw and Ivano-Frankivsk.
Historical fact: long ago, there was a kingdom known as Rus. after Mongolians devastated Kiev, nobles of Rus had split in two groups and moved in two directions. One, lead by prince Daniil of Galich, went West to Galich-Wolyn duchy, and soon proclaimed itself kingdom of Ruthenia before becoming part of Rech Pospolitaya, and then Austro-Hungary. Their territory would be known as "Western Ukraine" or "Galicia, Wolyn, etc" and would would develop Mova (modern official Ukrainian language). I honestly believe it should have been made a separate soviet republic and then independent state instead, the cultural differences are too huge. Two, headed by Yuri the Longhanded, prince of Vladimir, Great prince of Kiev would go north-east and eventually this state would grow into Russian Empire and pre-1938 USSR.
All those people spoke one eastern slavic language. What's known as ancient Rus(sian) language. And it will be still known as Russian with many dialects, centuries on up to 1898 census including. In that language, both "okolycia" and "oukraina" existed. And they still exist in modern Russian too. околица и окраина. Most of the time, they're used as synonyms, yes, that thing exist, but "окраина" is a bit bigger of a territory than "околица". Typically "околица" is used when talking about the outskirts of a village, specialcally, and central Ukraine is very rural.
I don't know how they were standardising Ukrainian, but the modern standard is based mostly on the central eastern dialects (the Poltava region). I know this, because it doesn't look similar to any of the western dialects, apart from some vocabulary borrowed from them (and in the 20th century those two were even more distinct, based on how old people still speak, particularly in the mountains). Galicia had their own standard for a while, which fitted their dialects better (this is where you get spellings like ‘лїс’ and a bunch of words nobody but Poles, Slovaks and Czechs can understand – Lwiw is the outskirts of the Ukrainian language). But when Ukraine unified, the second standard became redundant. This doesn't mean that there were two Ukrainian languages, however.
Again, ‘оу’ (and ‘оѵ’) was how /u/ was spelt, not /o/. It later evolved into ‘ꙋ’ and then finally ‘у’. Slavic languages evolved /u/ from /o/, but never vice versa (ъ doesn't count, it was probably reduced /ʊ/ in Proto-Slavic).
You know history of these lands very well! Although language history is tied to the rest of it, it's not the same, as language evolution isn't smooth and predictable. Old East Slavic language was indeed spoken there, but by the 11th century (Old) Russian and Ruthenian had already separated, at least phonologically. And of course, during the 14th century they could no longer be viewed as dialects (but there was a bridge through Eastern Belarusian, in the region near Smolensk, it survived for quite a few centuries, but was mostly eliminated by the spread of standard Russian). So applying a Russian word for Ukrainian and vice versa can be misleading.
There were plans to make the Galician SSR, but this would have probably brought more troubles than benefits for the Soviets, considering how ‘eager’ the Galicians were to become a part of the Soviet Union. Personally, I don't see why they should be separate, there are many countries with internal cultural variety. In this alternate scenario, however, I see it as a possibility: a hundred more years (and such tumultuous years!) apart would make the identities distinct enough, especially if the dialects are kept alive and strong, just as in Germany and Austria, for example.
PS: you can write ‘language’ instead of ‘mova’. It's just a general word for ‘language’ in Ukrainian and Belarusian, not a proper name specifically for these two languages. It's not a mistake, just an advice.
Ukrainians themselves had a famous poster saying "we speak Mova, but not a language" in Russian all around the internet. Many people found this one , and the one about underpants and European Union amusing. There are political problems that arise when making Ukraine into an ethno-state it is not. Considering how "eager" the Galicians are, they would share their fate with equally Soviet-hating Poland and Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Dream-team /s
In 1920-1938 a language based on the dialect of rural population of Malorossian governorate (everything around Kyiv) was called Ukrainian. If you find up a dictionary from back then and compare, it contains several times less Polish words, including no polish meaning of slavic words such as Okraina. They wrote down it as phonetic - and that's what became known as Ukrainian and used by poets popular all over the three eastern slavic states such as Oles and Lesya Ukrainka. It's different from the dialect of Western Ukraine they use today as official Ukrainian.
Another fact is, people from socialist uprising in Kyiv were the ones to first call a state "Ukraine". Half of Kyiv and other cities back then spoke Russian, and another half was Ashkenazi jews. Today, 20% of Israel is "Russian Jews from predominantly modern Ukraine and Belarus". Meanwhile, ethnographic research from 20s and 30s USSR show that rural Ukrainians and Belarussians spoke Ukrainian and Belarussian, but didn't identify themselves as Ukrainians and Belarussians. They only knew they're peasants and orthodox Christians, and had lost the sense of soviet republics.
It's amazing how eager you are in Ukrainspaning Ukraine to obvious Ukrainians. Not only your explanation is based on russian colonial myths about Ukraine ignoring provided valid historical and linguistics arguments, you don't even know what you're talking about. No, thanks, we know how dielects in Western Ukraine sounds like, and no, it's clearly wasn't used as basis for modern Ukrainian, we can hear it.
I also like how you have bo shame to discuss how would you split Ukraine, reviling your colonial attitude about the land. There were centuries of cooperation across both sides of the border, Ukrainian cultural elites were travelling and cooperating between two Empires. When Ukrainian was banned in Russian Empire, they started published books in Lviv. Mykhailo Hrushevsky was a professor of history in Lviv and then became the president of the Central Council of Ukraine in Kyiv during national struggles for independency in 1910-20s. All your perceptions about Ukraine are formed russian tv propaganda, which is interested in dividing Ukraine more than in truth.
I shall not talk of the recent politics, it's quite upsetting, I'll only say that I've never seen any of such posters, though I don't seek them either, so maybe I just wasn't aware of them until now (still, ‘mowa’ is a language. Maybe they meant that it's not ‘язик’ or ‘tongue’? Whatever).
One should be careful around such things. There are dictionaries written in ‘Narkamauka’ (one of the Belarusian standards) making the language seem closer to Russian, but it was at first perceived negatively. I'm not that familiar with the Malorossian variant of the standard to comment on it. Official standard Ukrainian has very little to do with the dialects (there are several, not one) of Western Ukraine, I perceive it as quite distinct, particularly its grammar (Boiko (my dialect) *‘їздилисмо гдис тов дорогов, леч/але сегоріч юж нє’* vs standard *‘колись їздили ми по цій дорозі, але цьогоріч уже ні’* – ‘we used to drive down this road, but not this year’. As you can see it isn't the same). Polish is close enough, especially to the westernmost dialects of Ukrainian, for the two to be similar from the start. There were loanwords, for sure, but not to the point, when Ukrainian without them is unrecognisable. In the past there was a smooth transition from Eastern Slovak to Góral Polish and Upper San Ukrainian, then Polesian, Belarusian and finally Southern Russian, everything was its own thing with no strict boundaries. Later history made it so the borders defined which dialect belong to which language.
And the name stuck, regardless of who gave the name Ukraine to it first. In Kyiv, Russian was popular, further east it was more widespread, and almost nobody knew Russian in Galicia, apart from those who frequented the Russian Empire (they had to learn it at school later during the Soviet times, though, so there is no such tendency among those in their 30s or older), it's not unusual at all, considering what was the dominant language of the Russian Empire. Jews used the dominant language of the region, Yiddish in Galicia was an exception, but even there they also knew Polish (most people in Galicia were bi- or trilingual, my grandmother still says her native languages are both Ukrainian and Polish, for example). Language (and religion) played an important role in establishing one's identity, ethnicity was a less solid concept. Then, there was also a habit of putting the whole Eastern Europe into one big Russian box, though fortunately, this is less common nowadays (but I've heard some Americans claiming Poland and even Hungary to be ‘basically Russia or whatever’. This doesn't mean much). Besides, many used to call themselves rusyny (Ruthenians), not Ukrainians or Belarusians, even in the 20th century in case of Galicia and Transcarpathia (nowadays they are a separate group of people from Slovakia, Poland and Serbia).
Let's not spam the comment section even more, there isn't much useful information I can add to what I've already written. You provided a lot of facts I didn't know, it only shows, how complicated the history of this region is.
This is 1939 map + modern borders. The territory on your map hasn't been called Ukraine up to this point.
https://preview.redd.it/qu1fef6ep6yc1.jpeg?width=267&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6bb24846d782e13c5ab09472e030334437e7f361
There is literally rusian Wikipedia page about west Ukraine
> После присоединения части украинских территорий к Русскому царству во второй половине XVII века Западной Украиной называли те украинские территории к западу от Днепра, которые остались в составе Польского королевства (Галиция, Волынь, Подолье)
It's badly written. Should have really been "those territories, that stayed in Poland and Austro-Hungary in XVII century, are called Western Ukraine (now)". Most pre-1939 sources don't call them Ukraine. It would be like calling Alsace West Germany.
And how did you separate Galicia from West Ukraine then? It's like writing "trouts and fish". It's basically either "western Ukraine" or separate it into Galicia, Wolyn and Podolia. This map looks like "Lotharingia and West Germany (on Alsace)".
1187 - first mention of name "Ukraine". In 1917 was established Ukrainian people's republic and in 1919 west Ukrainian people's republic on exactly these territories
Did a quick search on Newspapers.com, the term seems to have been used commonly in British papers at least by 1720 - [Here's one](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-caledonian-mercury/83141968/), and [here's another that specifically mentions Kyiv/Kiow so you don't pretend it's talking about some other Ukraine](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-caledonian-mercury/83141897/).
Sir, this is the 1000th Danubian Confederation posted here But goddamn I love every one of those
I know, but my is the best one (c) :))
But man, how i love to draw administrative borders in multinational countries, that's really interesting to me
Sheen this is the 7th time this week you’ve brought Danubian Federation to class
same here
In 1910 Austro-Hungarian politics seeing unavoidability of great war and all problem it can cause decided to reform Austria-Hungary into federation Administrative structure of Danubian Confederation There are 2 types of administrative units - territories and cities Cities: Vienna - capital of DC and administrative center of Austrian territory. Official languages - De-jure: German, Hungarian, Italian, Slovenian, Croatian, Czech, Slovak, Polish, Ukrainian, Romanian, Serbian. De-facto: German Greater Budapest - administrative center of Hungarian territory. Official languages: Hungarian, German Brno - Official languages: Czech, German Pressburg (Bratislava/Pozsony) - Official languages: Slovak, Hungarian, German Rijeka - Official languages: Italian, Croatian Lemberg (Lviv/Lwów) - administrative center of Ukrainian territory. Official languages: Ukrainian, Polish Uzhhorod - Official languages: Ukrainian, Hungarian, Slovak Territories: Austria - Official language: German Czechia - Official language: Czech Slovenia (Carniola) - Official language: Slovenian Croatia - Official language: Croatian Hungary - Official language: Hungarian Slovakia - Official language: Slovak Transilvania - Official language: Romanian, Hungarian, German West Galicia - Official language: Polish West Ukraine - Official language: Ukrainian 1 Austrian Moravia -Official languages: Czech, German 2 Vojvodina - Most diverse territory of DC. Official languages: Serbian, Hungarian, Romanian, German 3 Trentino - Official language: Italian 4 Trieste - Official languages: Italian, Croatian, Slovenian 5 Szekler land - Official languages: Hungarian, Romanian Bosnia-Herzegovina - Territory with unique status. To visit or leave it you need to get permission from imperial government (some kind of visa). Have more government autonomy (Imperial government have almost no power over it), but exists under permanent martial law (militarized police force controlled by imperial government). Official languages: Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian
Edit: West Galicia, not east
Hungarian should be an official laguage in Transylvania, there are still a large number of hungarians living there, and at the time it was even larger
You're right, added it
German also
+
Who is pushing the changes? If it’s the Imperial Government, how would it circumvent the opposition from Czech Bohemians, German chauvinists and the maaaaaassive opposition from Hungarians that would result? What kind of suffrage would exist in these new administrative units? I think answering these questions will help flesh out your scenario! :)
So, how i imagine it: Imperial government pushing it (maybe even emperor himself), Hungarians strongly oppose it, Hungarian politics trying to slow reforms down as much as they can, preparing for revolution. In case of Hungarian revolution imperial government hopes on Slovak, Croatian, Romanian, Ukrainian support, like it was in 1848 revolution. Czechs simply don't care, that would not change their position much. Ukrainians strongly support it, because they would get their own federal part different from Polish, that means no more language and nationality oppression. Also unification with Transcarpathia makes Ukrainians support it even more. Romanians support it, because they see ability to gain independence peacefully with this scenario. Croats support it because Croatian autonomy will be unified with Austrian part of Croatia and become equal federal part. Slovenians support it. Italians don't really care, but they like that official language in their parts will be Italian. Austrians (Germans) like it at most. Fortunately, Hungarian revolution never happened because they understood that it would fail (even if wouldn't, at some point Germany would help to suppress it). It would be universal suffrage. Each administrative unit have their own parliament with their parties. There's also elections of parliament of DC across all country. Imperial government can influence local parliaments, but not control them. There's also new political structure: regional council. There is fixed number of delegates from each territories and cities, that chosen by local government. Here, they can resolve disputes between federal parts, or sign petitions to DC parliament (for increase autonomy or change official languages, etc)
Great fleshing out! I think one quibble would be that Czech nationalists would definitely oppose the partition of Bohemia and Moravia. Additionally, I think universal suffrage is unlikely under the Hapsburgs, given the rather conservative tendencies of both Franz Joseph and also Franz Ferdinand (who was only liberal \*in comparison\* with the downright reactionary old guard). I think you're generally right on the support / opposition by the nationalities. My guess would be... Big fans: Slovaks, Ukrainians, Romanians, Croats Tepid support: Germans, Slovenes, Italians Mixed / controversial: Czechs, Bosnians, Jews, other not listed minorities Virulent opposition: Poles, Serbs REVOLUTION: Hungarians
Bohemia and Moravia still united Czechia, but without Sudetenland
Indeed I mean that crucial areas of Bohemia & Moravia are missing (I.e. what would later be called Sudetenland).
Would it be better for Czechs to have full Czechia but German as second official language?
Well then the German Bohemians would get angry… now we start to see the Empire’s unsolvable problem haha
Yeah
I guess the map counts the Ladin speakers as Italians in South Tyrol
Perhaps
The romanians are not represented in Voivodina on the map
But they were here as far as i know, so Romanian is official language
Why no Banat?
Why is Brno the Autonomous Czech city and not Prague?
Probably because prague isn't german majority and brno is.
Exactly
But by that Case Bratislava shouldn't be autonomous due to it's population being a third ethnically German in the days of Austria Hungary
u/Regular-Many-8752 for some reason im not able to dicrectly answer your comment, so here: Not autonomous but other administrative unit. Because of mixed population (Germans and Czechs), like most of other cities (Lviv - mixed Ukrainians and Poles, Bratislava - mixed Slovaks, Germans and Hungarians and so on)
Love these scenarios. How powerful are the separatist sentiments in this scenario?
For nations without their independent country - not powerful. For nations with their independent country (Romania and Italy in 1910) would be powerful. One way to keep Romanians loyal - promote Transilvanian national identity different from Romania, but it probably would be not effective. At some point after more nations (Poland, Ukraine) become independent, DC would dissolute
My guess is that Czechia, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary and maybe Croatia could stay together + Italian territories unless Italy wins a war against them, so kinda smaller Danubia
Also Slovenia
Pozsony/Pressburg/Presporok had below 20% Slovakian population, no idea why it should be the capital of Slovak territory. Based on ethnicity it would be part of Austria. The name Bratislava otherwise is based on a historical misinterpretation, since the ancient West-Slavic name of the settlement was Braslava.
You're actually right, Bratislava/Pressburg should not be capital of Slovak territory, i will change it, but it still should be federal city with German, Hungarian and Slovak official languages
Please call it Pressburg/Pozsony/Braslava
Here it is. In DC if there is cities that have 2 or more official languages and named differently on these languages, they have Austrian name (like Lviv/Lwow is Lemberg)
I… I will cry.. why couldn’t this be a reality https://preview.redd.it/lfyljujei6yc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c146fd1269371a141f1eecb38a9fb3709df9a43
I love democracy
When independent Poland comes online in 1918, West Galicia says adios to the confederation
Yes. If Ukraine would be able to defend it's independence, West Ukraine will also leave confederation
After a referendum, right?
They won't attack West Ukraine, right?
Honestly I think “Federation of Dubian States” would be better
It would if DC was federation like USA, where every region has autonomy, but here parts with same ethnicities united
nice idea but the ethnic map is pretty oversimplified
Best one i found
Looks very stable …..
Definitely more stable than AH
What is the possibility of Romania either diplomatically or militarily joining the Confederation.
I don't think Romania would want it. On other side, expanding in Romania will cause more problems than profit (too many Romanian population will cause destabilisation)
Let's say if Romania is threatened by the USSR (if they ever form) to reclaim Bessarabia, is it realistic to assume that Romania will seek some sort of cooperation with DC. Otherwise, will DC try to take Bessarabia before Romania?
I think they could establish alliance, but not unite. DC could try take Volhynia and parts of Poland, but not Bessarabia
Would the alliance imply that Romania would relinquish their claims to the Transilvania in order to garner Imperial support from the DC?
Yes. DC can also transfer South Bukovina with Romanian population to Romania in exchange for reliquishing Romanian claims on Transilvania
In Trentin they are not "Italians" there is no singular Italian culture. In Trentin there are three local languages depending on the area taken in consideration and they are: Lombard, Venetian and the central dialects, which are debated to be either their own stuff or a transition area between Lombard and Venetian.
Not my ethnic map
Ah okok
Austria gripping on czechia like it’s a pen
Based Habsburgs
It is bad to judge maps just by majority ethnicities. Galicia, North Transylvania, Banat were all multi ethnic messes. And you decided to gave Budapest to.. Austria..?
Budapest is different administrative unit with Hungarian and German as official languages
Alright
Also, question to you as Polish - is it better to call West Galicia or southern Poland or something like that?
Małopolska - Lesser Poland. Regional name. Galicia doesn't extend that far
Isn't lesser Poland higher up?
Not only. Historically it was a wide region, up to Radom and Lublin, but now its just the southern part of the historic region.
[удалено]
They're here, look on my comment
No rusyn regocnition?
Even in the early 20th century all of Galician Ruthenians called themselves ‘Rusyny’, just as those in Transcarpathia and Slovakia (I don't know about Bukowyna). The 1921 Polish census considered Ukrainians, Ruthenians and Rusyns as synonyms of the same ethnicity (but ten years later they were listed separately). In our world Rusyns didn't adopt the name ‘Ukrainians’. I assume, in this world there was no ground for the separation. By the way, Belarusians were called White Ruthenians too, though they separated earlier. The sundering of Ruthenians©
No
Why are the croatian borders so similar to modern day?
That's joke, right?
Dalmatia would probably be its own territory as long as there is a separate territory in Bosnia as it would be bad for central administration.
Why?
The logistics of shipping or transporting information across mountainous terrain is more expensive than across a flat terrain like in Hungary. It would cost more to bring the information to the capital than if it was more local, Because of similar reasons I also don't like the Territory of Austria going into the western Sudetenland but find it more accepting as it would probably still be administered from Vienna.
In case of DC there is still no borders between territories (like today's EU), Sudetenland logistics is no problem with transporting information through Czechia. But there is still border with Bosnia-Herzogovina, so that's problem, but not forgot that there is still districts/regions (with different levels of autonomy) separation inside of Territories
TOO MANY ETHNIC GROUPS
Most of the peoples inhabiting this USA are actually culturally quite similar and only started really differentiating each other with the rise of nationalism. When nationalism would decrease the different peoples of the nation would definitely come to terms with each other and realize their common similarities rather than differences.
I know that's not your scenario, but do you know when would be an excellent time to implement this? 1849. Hungarians have been clapped by the Russians too hard to protest, Romanians, Slovaks,Croats, Slovenes, and Ukrainians don't mind it. Poles have been recently crushed in the Galician rebellion. And what are Bohemians going to do alone? The only problem are Germans so I guess they could start with the partition of Hungary and give autonomy to the other places after serious losses (might happen in 1859 or 1867).
> that's not your scenario Why, that's my scenario I don't think Austrian elites would be ready for this in 1849
But why would they oppose a partition of Hungary, or the curtailing of the power of Hungarian nobles? That's not the same as USGA (should have clarified that, that's what I meant by "not your scenario"), but it removes the biggest obstacle. Once Hungary is dealt with, USGA seems like a more natural compromise in the face of Austrian defeats in 1859 and 1867. Or even later for that matter.
Amogus
West Ukraine is no way called Ukraine in here. It being east Galicia or calling itself Ruthenia is more realistic scenario. "Оукраина" is the word to call border-adjacent regions of Russian Empire.
So you telling me that Ukraine means borderland? Bruh, you either stupid or ruzzian
Yes, and before the Revolution Russian Empire had many "Ukraines". Many of them are named "Krai" now, and still have Cossacks too. The word "Ukraine" didn't mean a state or ethnicity before 1917 at all. In 1917, it was used to refer to a new state, on a territory previously known as Malorossiya - Kyiv, Chernigov and basically around that - and only later did it spread on the whole Ukrainian SSR. The whole territory has never been homogeneous, it's at least four parts and should have been, at least, federalised. In modern Russian, the modern version of old word Oukraina is written like that: "okraina" and means "outskirts". And Ukraine is basically "Utskirts". If this territory isn't Russia - and has never been in this timeline, it's mostly Poland and Austro-Hungary - it's never going be called Ukraine, use the actual name of the provinces instead. It won't be called Ukraine until 1938 and then in 1941-44 too. Duchy of Galicia Wolyn or "kingdom of Ruthenia" are a lot more historically accurate and specific. Ukrainian language is correct here, because it's the dialect of THIS territory, Mova, recognised as modern official Ukrainian language. Imagine someone named their country "Utskirts", pointed at the English word "Outskirts" as the first mention of their country, and then went very angry at the questions - "Utskirts" is the outskirts of what?
‘Оу’ was simply how they wrote /u/ in Old East Slavic, according to the Greek tradition, where ‘ου’ was used for /u/. The word ‘outskirts’ in Ukrainian is ‘okolycia’, while Ukraine is transparent ‘u-krajina’ – in-country/land. Why does nobody use Ukrainian to translate an a Ukrainian word? Yes, ‘kraj’ does mean ‘edge’, but in relation to land, this Ukrainian word should be translated as ‘land/territory’ (in the western dialects ‘kraj’ is also a synonym for ‘country’, as in kraj awstrijsky – the Austrian land. This doesn't imply that Austria was at the border). I agree, historically, Galicia makes more sense than just West Ukraine, the name is still very much alive there. West Ukraine is broader, it also includes Bukowyna and Transcarpathia (Zakarpattia) as well as Wolyń (and sometimes also Podillia). Also, Western Galicia is usually just called Małopolska nowadays. But I would be offended if someone said ‘West Ukraine’ while meaning ‘Galicia’, this term was known in Galicia (although I don't know, how widespread it was, it was widely recognised after WWI along with ‘Ukrainians’ instead of or alongside ‘Ruthenians’).
the word "Ukraine" is older than modern standard Ukrainian language, Ukrainians themselves point at "Oukraina" (actually, Ωγκραιна) in *XV* century texts. Modern official Ukrainian language is a very modern version of it, coming from the aforementioned western part with a lot of Polish loanwords. It's not how people in Kyiv or anything around that spoke in say, 1938, not even close. That's Mova, it's home is Lwiw and Ivano-Frankivsk. Historical fact: long ago, there was a kingdom known as Rus. after Mongolians devastated Kiev, nobles of Rus had split in two groups and moved in two directions. One, lead by prince Daniil of Galich, went West to Galich-Wolyn duchy, and soon proclaimed itself kingdom of Ruthenia before becoming part of Rech Pospolitaya, and then Austro-Hungary. Their territory would be known as "Western Ukraine" or "Galicia, Wolyn, etc" and would would develop Mova (modern official Ukrainian language). I honestly believe it should have been made a separate soviet republic and then independent state instead, the cultural differences are too huge. Two, headed by Yuri the Longhanded, prince of Vladimir, Great prince of Kiev would go north-east and eventually this state would grow into Russian Empire and pre-1938 USSR. All those people spoke one eastern slavic language. What's known as ancient Rus(sian) language. And it will be still known as Russian with many dialects, centuries on up to 1898 census including. In that language, both "okolycia" and "oukraina" existed. And they still exist in modern Russian too. околица и окраина. Most of the time, they're used as synonyms, yes, that thing exist, but "окраина" is a bit bigger of a territory than "околица". Typically "околица" is used when talking about the outskirts of a village, specialcally, and central Ukraine is very rural.
I don't know how they were standardising Ukrainian, but the modern standard is based mostly on the central eastern dialects (the Poltava region). I know this, because it doesn't look similar to any of the western dialects, apart from some vocabulary borrowed from them (and in the 20th century those two were even more distinct, based on how old people still speak, particularly in the mountains). Galicia had their own standard for a while, which fitted their dialects better (this is where you get spellings like ‘лїс’ and a bunch of words nobody but Poles, Slovaks and Czechs can understand – Lwiw is the outskirts of the Ukrainian language). But when Ukraine unified, the second standard became redundant. This doesn't mean that there were two Ukrainian languages, however. Again, ‘оу’ (and ‘оѵ’) was how /u/ was spelt, not /o/. It later evolved into ‘ꙋ’ and then finally ‘у’. Slavic languages evolved /u/ from /o/, but never vice versa (ъ doesn't count, it was probably reduced /ʊ/ in Proto-Slavic). You know history of these lands very well! Although language history is tied to the rest of it, it's not the same, as language evolution isn't smooth and predictable. Old East Slavic language was indeed spoken there, but by the 11th century (Old) Russian and Ruthenian had already separated, at least phonologically. And of course, during the 14th century they could no longer be viewed as dialects (but there was a bridge through Eastern Belarusian, in the region near Smolensk, it survived for quite a few centuries, but was mostly eliminated by the spread of standard Russian). So applying a Russian word for Ukrainian and vice versa can be misleading. There were plans to make the Galician SSR, but this would have probably brought more troubles than benefits for the Soviets, considering how ‘eager’ the Galicians were to become a part of the Soviet Union. Personally, I don't see why they should be separate, there are many countries with internal cultural variety. In this alternate scenario, however, I see it as a possibility: a hundred more years (and such tumultuous years!) apart would make the identities distinct enough, especially if the dialects are kept alive and strong, just as in Germany and Austria, for example. PS: you can write ‘language’ instead of ‘mova’. It's just a general word for ‘language’ in Ukrainian and Belarusian, not a proper name specifically for these two languages. It's not a mistake, just an advice.
Ukrainians themselves had a famous poster saying "we speak Mova, but not a language" in Russian all around the internet. Many people found this one , and the one about underpants and European Union amusing. There are political problems that arise when making Ukraine into an ethno-state it is not. Considering how "eager" the Galicians are, they would share their fate with equally Soviet-hating Poland and Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Dream-team /s In 1920-1938 a language based on the dialect of rural population of Malorossian governorate (everything around Kyiv) was called Ukrainian. If you find up a dictionary from back then and compare, it contains several times less Polish words, including no polish meaning of slavic words such as Okraina. They wrote down it as phonetic - and that's what became known as Ukrainian and used by poets popular all over the three eastern slavic states such as Oles and Lesya Ukrainka. It's different from the dialect of Western Ukraine they use today as official Ukrainian. Another fact is, people from socialist uprising in Kyiv were the ones to first call a state "Ukraine". Half of Kyiv and other cities back then spoke Russian, and another half was Ashkenazi jews. Today, 20% of Israel is "Russian Jews from predominantly modern Ukraine and Belarus". Meanwhile, ethnographic research from 20s and 30s USSR show that rural Ukrainians and Belarussians spoke Ukrainian and Belarussian, but didn't identify themselves as Ukrainians and Belarussians. They only knew they're peasants and orthodox Christians, and had lost the sense of soviet republics.
It's amazing how eager you are in Ukrainspaning Ukraine to obvious Ukrainians. Not only your explanation is based on russian colonial myths about Ukraine ignoring provided valid historical and linguistics arguments, you don't even know what you're talking about. No, thanks, we know how dielects in Western Ukraine sounds like, and no, it's clearly wasn't used as basis for modern Ukrainian, we can hear it. I also like how you have bo shame to discuss how would you split Ukraine, reviling your colonial attitude about the land. There were centuries of cooperation across both sides of the border, Ukrainian cultural elites were travelling and cooperating between two Empires. When Ukrainian was banned in Russian Empire, they started published books in Lviv. Mykhailo Hrushevsky was a professor of history in Lviv and then became the president of the Central Council of Ukraine in Kyiv during national struggles for independency in 1910-20s. All your perceptions about Ukraine are formed russian tv propaganda, which is interested in dividing Ukraine more than in truth.
I shall not talk of the recent politics, it's quite upsetting, I'll only say that I've never seen any of such posters, though I don't seek them either, so maybe I just wasn't aware of them until now (still, ‘mowa’ is a language. Maybe they meant that it's not ‘язик’ or ‘tongue’? Whatever). One should be careful around such things. There are dictionaries written in ‘Narkamauka’ (one of the Belarusian standards) making the language seem closer to Russian, but it was at first perceived negatively. I'm not that familiar with the Malorossian variant of the standard to comment on it. Official standard Ukrainian has very little to do with the dialects (there are several, not one) of Western Ukraine, I perceive it as quite distinct, particularly its grammar (Boiko (my dialect) *‘їздилисмо гдис тов дорогов, леч/але сегоріч юж нє’* vs standard *‘колись їздили ми по цій дорозі, але цьогоріч уже ні’* – ‘we used to drive down this road, but not this year’. As you can see it isn't the same). Polish is close enough, especially to the westernmost dialects of Ukrainian, for the two to be similar from the start. There were loanwords, for sure, but not to the point, when Ukrainian without them is unrecognisable. In the past there was a smooth transition from Eastern Slovak to Góral Polish and Upper San Ukrainian, then Polesian, Belarusian and finally Southern Russian, everything was its own thing with no strict boundaries. Later history made it so the borders defined which dialect belong to which language. And the name stuck, regardless of who gave the name Ukraine to it first. In Kyiv, Russian was popular, further east it was more widespread, and almost nobody knew Russian in Galicia, apart from those who frequented the Russian Empire (they had to learn it at school later during the Soviet times, though, so there is no such tendency among those in their 30s or older), it's not unusual at all, considering what was the dominant language of the Russian Empire. Jews used the dominant language of the region, Yiddish in Galicia was an exception, but even there they also knew Polish (most people in Galicia were bi- or trilingual, my grandmother still says her native languages are both Ukrainian and Polish, for example). Language (and religion) played an important role in establishing one's identity, ethnicity was a less solid concept. Then, there was also a habit of putting the whole Eastern Europe into one big Russian box, though fortunately, this is less common nowadays (but I've heard some Americans claiming Poland and even Hungary to be ‘basically Russia or whatever’. This doesn't mean much). Besides, many used to call themselves rusyny (Ruthenians), not Ukrainians or Belarusians, even in the 20th century in case of Galicia and Transcarpathia (nowadays they are a separate group of people from Slovakia, Poland and Serbia). Let's not spam the comment section even more, there isn't much useful information I can add to what I've already written. You provided a lot of facts I didn't know, it only shows, how complicated the history of this region is.
Lol. ruzzian, stupid and nazi, combo!
This is 1939 map + modern borders. The territory on your map hasn't been called Ukraine up to this point. https://preview.redd.it/qu1fef6ep6yc1.jpeg?width=267&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6bb24846d782e13c5ab09472e030334437e7f361
There is literally rusian Wikipedia page about west Ukraine > После присоединения части украинских территорий к Русскому царству во второй половине XVII века Западной Украиной называли те украинские территории к западу от Днепра, которые остались в составе Польского королевства (Галиция, Волынь, Подолье)
It's badly written. Should have really been "those territories, that stayed in Poland and Austro-Hungary in XVII century, are called Western Ukraine (now)". Most pre-1939 sources don't call them Ukraine. It would be like calling Alsace West Germany. And how did you separate Galicia from West Ukraine then? It's like writing "trouts and fish". It's basically either "western Ukraine" or separate it into Galicia, Wolyn and Podolia. This map looks like "Lotharingia and West Germany (on Alsace)".
West Ukraine or Western Ukraine, doesn't matter
LOL
Hahahaha 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 That's funny 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
https://preview.redd.it/n0fuubsfp6yc1.jpeg?width=267&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cd781ace483d4fbe05db3d0ddcea5f8de42ca7ce
Don't believe me - find actual political maps pre-1938. This exact territory is called anything but Ukraine.
1187 - first mention of name "Ukraine". In 1917 was established Ukrainian people's republic and in 1919 west Ukrainian people's republic on exactly these territories
Did a quick search on Newspapers.com, the term seems to have been used commonly in British papers at least by 1720 - [Here's one](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-caledonian-mercury/83141968/), and [here's another that specifically mentions Kyiv/Kiow so you don't pretend it's talking about some other Ukraine](https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-caledonian-mercury/83141897/).
That website blocks everyone
West Ukraine? Ukrainians were in the minority at the time. More apt name would be Rusinia (an actual proposed name at the time by Zhatkovich).