Ugh, sorry for the late reply.
Although I don’t believe the empire could have survived in its contemporary form, it didn’t have to be annihilated. I see Wilson’s insistence on “democracy for the peoples’ of Central Europe” as an early form of Bush II’s “democracy in the middle East” project. Neither region was ready for it. Had some stronger confederated power block been allowed to survive, Hitler might not have had such an easy time of it. He might have been stopped, or at least hemmed in, before the disaster of Munich.
The destruction of Austro-Hungary was an overwrought reaction of the victors and smacked of shear vengeance. It was similar to the ruinous reparations visited on Germany. Neither policy was prudent, leaving both Germany and lands of the former empire prostrate, but not destroyed. They became more susceptible to the demogogue’s siren song after being ruined by reparations and splintered by Wilson’s “democratic imperative.”
Of course the Czechs and some other nationalities benefited from a short-lived freedom, but didn’t it get them swallowed up first by Hitler and then by Stalin? Anyway, just my honest opinion. Stopping Hitler was going to be a close run thing not matter what happened to the empire.
I believe the Allies preferred handing the former Ottoman lands to an ally (Serbia, creating Yugoslavia) rather than leave them in the hands of a German ally.
Democracy was never the goal in either the Balkans or the Middle East; some former Hapsburg lands ended up under a monarchy (King Peter of Serbia) or a military government (Poland). Arabs were transferred from colonial rule to monarchs or dictators as well.
Ho Chi Minh realized Versailles was a lie when he went hoping to secure independence for Indochina; he was ignored, and thirty five years later obtained independence at gunpoint.