Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war against Serbia in 1914 was the start of the first World War. Now I totally understand why the country’s leadership wanted to go to war. But the empire was racked with ethnic tensions and many of those ethinc groups had little loyalty to the central government. Yet I’ve never heard of any uprisings or antiwar movements by these groups until well after the war started going against the country. Why?
One might argue that the assassination of the heir to the throne by a Bosnian nationalist might count as such. But how to account for your not having heard of it is a bit much to ask of an anonymous internet forum.
An assassination is not a revolt in the sense I think OP meant of armed uprising.
Also, there is no inference from what he said that he was unaware of the assassination
you refer to. Also, referring to the perpetrator as “Bosnian” distorts the truth of
the matter which is that he was acting as a Serb. Non-Serb Bosnians had no more
wish be fall under Serbian rule in 1914 that they did in the 1990s.
Perhaps life was not all that bad for minorities under the dual monarchy. In any
event none but the Serbs seem to have been upset enough about it to shoot people.
There is no one-size-fits-all wraparound answer to the OP. Various groups had differing levels of discontent with the status quo.
The Osterdeutsch? They were in the catbird seat, and knew it.
The Magyars? A long, hard fight to establish their autonomy, co-equality, and co-hegemony with the Austrians had borne fruit in 1867, and they were emphatically not going to rock that boat. Along with the Austrians, they ran the country. Independence from Vienna was as far from their minds as independence from Washington is from most Californians’.
The Italians? Predominantly they wanted to be free from Austria and part of Italy.
The Slovenes? Split among three Austrian duchies, they seem to have barely had a sense of national ethnic identity, far less any quest for nationhood.
The Croats? Interesting issue here: they had the closest thing to autonomy for a non-German/Magyar group in being under their own Ban (=Grand Duke/Prince) within Hungary. There was definite agitation, but by and large it seems to have been for greater autonomy within the Dual Monarchy, not independence – a third hegemonic nation within the Empire, along with the Austrians and Magyars, not sole proprietorship of their own small nation.
The Bosnians and Herzegovinans? Part of the Empire for only a couple of years, they were united in wanting out – but with the ethnic mixture there, out to what was the question they broke down into factions on.
The Czechs (at this point known to the rest of the world as the Bohemians and Moravians)? A long and proud independent history as a mixture of Germans and ethnic Czech, they wanted self-governance, in or out of the Dual Monarchy, but seem prior to the War to have taken a Fabian approach – “we’ll get better results from ongoing patient steady pressure than from abrupt action or revolt.”
The Slovaks? A small minority under the thumb of the Magyars, they don’t seem to have conceived of independence as an achievable goal. (This is not to put down the Slovaks in any way, but a strong, populous Slovakia is very much a 20th century development.)
The Galician Poles? Fascinating situation. Restoration of an independent Poland was an idealistic dream close to nearly everyone’s heart – but given the circumstances, they looked at the status of their co-ethnics under Russia and Prussia and enjoyed the comparatively loose overlordship of distant Vienna.
The Transylvanians? I don’t really get a good impression of their desires. (Remember that Transylvania was like a filled donut – a Romanian torus with German/Magyar filling.) Hungary and Romania would lay claim to Transylvania, but what the Transylvanians themselves wanted … who knows?
The Banat? Mixed crazy-quilt potpourri of ethnic Serbs, Croats, and Magyars, just north of Belgrade and just south of the Alfolds of Hungary. High tension area – the Serbs wanted rid of their Magyar overlords (as later the Banat Magyars would be bitching about Serbian oppression).
That’s a very rough ethnic analysis, laden with stereotypes. Remember that stereotypes can be accurate as a “most of them think/feel this” but are never an absolute statement of what all a given ethnicity thinks or feels.
So what happened that suddenly a dozen separate countries popped out of the empire(s)? Did discontent fester during the war, did they take advantage of Weiner chaos, or was it a trick by the allies to emasculate their former opponents?
initially nobody, including those ethnic groups, realized just how much of a SHTF experience the war is going to be. Then when it was in full swing, you know what happens to people who rebel or even agitate against an ongoing war? To judge from people being imprisoned over saying the wrong thing as described here The Good Soldier Švejk - Wikipedia it’s not good for your health.
The American version of WW1 dissent suppression is discussed here Espionage Act of 1917 - Wikipedia. And Austria-Hungary was a lot less concerned with citizens’ inalienable rights than America, least of all when dealing with Slavic nationalities.
I think we all know what the Transylvanians wanted.
SHTF? 
Shit hits the fan.
In fact the “can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre” quote was made by the Supreme Court (OW Holmes, IIRC) to justify stripping war dissenters of citizenship and deporting them for having the temerity to exercise free speech in America. Not that it was like the Patriot Act or anything like that.
They were not discontented enough to start a rebellion and even not enough to turn their weapons to their officers, but they were discontent enough to take independence when it was dropped in front of them. I bet a lot of that has to do with no coordination between the minority nationalities.
My family came from Transylvania, in fact, the old home town kept being traded between Hungary and Romania. Just subsitute whichever ethnic group a particular person identified with. If they spoke Hungarian and identified as Magyar, that’s what they wanted. Ditto for the Romanian contingent.
That’s been the trouble with cental Europe for centuries. The ethnic groups don’t stay in tight little geographic areas. Even when they do, the Catholics, Protestants and Jews are always happy to split into factions
BRIAN: Can I . . . join your group?
REG: No. Pss off.
BRIAN: I didn’t want to sell this stuff. It’s only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody.
PEOPLE’S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh.
REG: Schtum.
JUDITH: Are you sure?
BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already.
REG: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you’d have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN: I do!
REG: Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN: A lot!
REG: Right. You’re in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fcking Judean People’s Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah . . .
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters . . .
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People’s Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters . . .
LORETTA: And the People’s Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters . . .
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People’s Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: WE’RE the People’s Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People’s Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He’s over there.
P.F.J.: Splitter!
thanks for making straight dope the best message board. This is what I like. personal analysis mixed with solid facts. great post
Yes, it is. But let’s not forget the other thing that makes this place great:
As far as I understand, not really. The concept of national states arouse in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars. Before that language, ethnicity etc were not a big deal.
Yes and no. Poles were quite unhappy about Poland being split up between Russia, Prussia, and Austria-Hungary in the 1790’s. They were VERY happy when Napoleon created the Grand Duchy of Warsaw as that gave them a (theoretically) sovreign nation.