Is Austria Germany?

[stribbor]

Austrians called themselves Germans up to First World War. There's no much difference between them culturally, from language to cuisine. But, ethnically they differ much from, lets say, people in Mecklenburg or Schleswig. We can even ask are North Germans same as Jylland Danes?
But Austrians have been way cunninger than Germans - they made world believe Hitler is German and Beethoven Austrian and they've been neutral quite lot.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

And like [the raise of the NSDAP] in Germany, you have to consider [the acceptance of the Anschluss] in Austria to the chaotic, socially unstable "Wirtschaftskrise".

It reminds me of those political articles with titles like "It's the Economy, stupid!"

The regime of the "Ständestaat" (also called by some "Austro-Fascism") was against to popular movements in Austria of that time: Against Ns. and against Social Democracy. In the "Anhaltelager" (like concentration camps in a neutral meaning of the word) Ns. and Social Democrats came together, which was one of the reasons the Socialists and Ns. had less of a problem in Austria probably.

There was a small civil war against Social Democrats (1934) and of course the assassination of Dollfuss by the, at that time illegal in Austria, Ns.

But again, the only reason why Austria didnt became part of Germany, was the Versailler and St. Germain treaties which prohibited it, nothing else. Originally Austria was called "Deutsch-Oesterreich" ("German Austria") after WWI to make clear that this is now the German part of the former Habsburgian empire.

The Ns., I might add, made after the "Anschluss" mistakes too, this had again, zero to do with racial standards and the like, but it was a partly somewhat arrogant behaviour on the one side and the problem of negating an "Austrian existence" as such. F.e. the federal states became "Gaue":

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...x-NaziGaue.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s/b/be/GDR.png

This was normal and not the problem, but partly they made an end to historically grown structures (like Eastern Tyrol and Vorarlberg), which made sense from an administrative point of view, and partly banned the names of Austria as such, calling Niederoesterreich und Oberoesterreich now Niederdonau and Oberdonau, the whole Austrian part of Ostmark.

Austrians wanted to be part of Germany and felt as Germans, but they wanted to be treated like equals and their identity with respect. This was mostly the case, but not always and you can bet on which examples were exaggerated after the war for "patriotic Austrians" to make clear how bad the situation was.

And of course, it was partly "a Prussian takeover" in the administration and partly way of thinking, which wasnt welcomed by all, especially Catholic-Conservative, people neither.

This were minor issues in comparison to what I have said above, since the main reason was definitely the war and what happened afterwards, but still.

But to come back to the antagonism of Christian-Socials/Conservatives and Social Democrats which led even to a small civil war, those two movements decided after the war to make a peaceful cooperation and state now, this was the real birth of Austria after the 2nd WW. The Austrian state as a form of peaceful cooperation and social partners, chamber of labour and Austrian chamber of commerce etc., so parts of the Catholic/Fascist social organisation were implemented to prevent real class struggles, strikes and violence.
Simple put, the "Austrian deal" was to shut up, not talking about what was before and about "being German", nor too much about class struggle and the like, and making always peaceful compromises, trying to partition the whole state and all powers between the major players, the OEVP and SPOE. This is not the same as corruption, its a deal about "who gets his people in" - many Austrians had a certain time to be member of one of the two parties and participating for having better chances for a certain position or social climbing etc.
The whole situation, as well as the integration of Ns., many in the Social Democratic party actually, can only be properly understood if looking at the pre-war history and the situation during the war.

The way how the "independent and non-German identity of Austrians" was enforced and emphasized after WW2 was partly even ridiculous with people having to participate in certain ceremonies if they wanted or not and a sort of exaggerated patriotism at times.

But to compare the situation with Spain, just imagine Spain would have participated in a war, would have lost and occupied by foreign forces and there was a propaganda against Spaniard Fascists being very cruel and inhuman people which made horrible crimes. Nobody knows what will happen, if the occupying forces will ever leave and what they will do with the people, probably punishing them, disfranchise them or whatever and the situation is just horrible, destruction, no food, many males P.O.W. and mentally broken etc.
Now there was a part of the country about which one could say they were "forced being part of Spain", since even though the majority was happily part of the nation, a minor part wasnt and there were legal disputes also. But before the lost war, they wouldnt ever have thought about being "non-Spanish", but now, after the lost war and in the current situation, "being Spanish" was like a swear word and a big disadvantage in the face of the foreign occupation. So this small part of the country began to emphasize, already when the first foreign soldiers came after the long bloody war and full destruction, that they "are no Spanish but X" and they became a better treatment because of that, since they were, "somehow" part of "the victims" rather than the "Fascist perpetrators". So after beginning that way after the war, there was no way back but rather a situation in which this "independence and non-Spanish character" of this small part had to be further exaggerated to legitimate the own behaviour and situation.

That I took Spain as an example is not just because of your identity Mynydd, but also because Spain might have been very lucky that something like that DIDN'T HAPPEN but COULD HAVE HAPPENED. Just think about the situation in the civil war, regional differences and the possibility of a defeated Fascist regime being soon demonised, with all those which became "innocently part of the regime" or even "resisted to the regime" were not part of the "guilty mafia" but victims...

The whole "own guilt" debate reached Austria later and not that intensive as the FRG by the way, for obvious reasons. The bad side of this medal was, that in Austria German nationalism was largely equated with Ns. by the propaganda, which made a German identity even less possible, especially if thinking about the re-education and legal situation in the country, as well as the public opinion. That way a German identity was suppressed and demonised by being equated with the post war propaganda image of Ns. in Austria to a large degree on the one hand, and again, yes it was also an economic issue, by the "better life" people had in the new Austrian state - of which people became proud because of its neutral status, stability, prosperity and peace. They didnt wanted to become part of the NATO and they didnt wanted social conflicts, both guaranteed by the Proporz-Regime of OEVP and SPOE, which was partly really an achievement I'd say, though one has to consider many factors for its relative success.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Wouldn't that be a subracialist approach to the definition of nation? They are united by language and history (as separate states of an 'empire'). And even if individually there are culture and character differences among each other, they are all part of a bigger German idiosincracy that all together form an identity differed from other identities.

No. I dont know about the difference in sub-race in Germany, but it wasnt that I was referring to. I am not saying I am sure I would advocate such a division, but I would perhaps find it more consistent, from a perspective of culture/nation and not subrace.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

That doesn't sound very intelligent. It would have left Denmark like a sandwidch.

Yes, but the "cultural" center of Denmark (well, of Scandinavia) has always been and is still the Danish Islands, where the Danes originate. Most people that visit Denmark, visit Copenhagen, then leave. It would have left them where they started out, so to say.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Anyway, I wonder if Jutland compares to Friesland with relation to The Netherlands.

I doubt it. The Jutes and the Frisians (or perhaps just the Dutch) are interrelated though, and the Jutes did at a point inhabit certain parts of the Frisian coast.

Originally Posted by stribbor

We can even ask are North Germans same as Jylland Danes?

The Southern Jutes, below the border, are probably a mixture of North German and Jute/Dane. But no, Jylland and Northern Germany dont have the same ethnological make-up. I would call North Germany Anglo-Saxons, and perhaps slightly Prussian, whereas Jutes descend from Jutes and Danes, and modern Jutland has also been subject to migrations from Southern Germany, the Netherlands and other areas (farmers, that migrated and were given the objective to cultivate the heath).

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

That I took Spain as an example is not just because of your identity Mynydd, but also because Spain might have been very lucky that something like that DIDN'T HAPPEN but COULD HAVE HAPPENED.

But it did happen. Only that you apparently don't know it. Spanish Irredentism has in fact different slopes. One is that of the Basque, Navarran and Catalan territories and peoples occupied by France. The other is merely territorial, Gibraltar. And then there is the issue of Portugal, which is more complex as it has been separated from Spain since 711 AD, except for the period between 1583 to 1640.

However, comparisons are of no use here since the Spanish ethnogenesis has its peak moment in a well defined period of history, that starts in 573 AD through to 589 AD.


The bottom point here is not to question the belonging of Austria to a German nation, but how this nation is deconstructed under the post-romanticist tenets of German National Socialism (nS ), through the subracialist myth of the race.

Leave aside for a moment the fact that the division of the nation came as a consequence of Germans losing the war to which National Socialism had taken them into, which I'm not denying. What I'm arguing is a different matter altogether: National Socialism laid the foundations for the deconstruction of the German nation.

[Agrippa]

National Socialism laid the foundations for the deconstruction of the German nation.

Only insofar, as Germany lost a war under a Ns. regime I'd say.

Don't forget, many of the enemies Germany had as a Ns. state, it already had before and they wouldnt have accepted a German dominance in Europe whether the regime was Ns. or not, whether it was this or that sort of dominance independent from the Western powers and plutocracy.

But it did happen. Only that you apparently don't know it. Spanish Irredentism has in fact different slopes. One is that of the Basque, Navarran and Catalan territories and peoples occupied by France.

I knew that this had an impact, considering where the anarcho-socialist-communist resistence was centered in Spain, but what didnt happen was the foreign anti-Fascist occupation and what followed, with the consequence of a real partition.

I forgot to mention that an independent Austrian "nation" and identity was one of the preconditions for the political autonomy and integrity of the Austrian state by allies. Austria was partitioned among the allied forces and administrations for quite some time and there was a fear of Eastern Austria and Vienna ending like Germany and Berlin.
Allied-administered Austria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Austrian State Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An Austrian independence was already decided by the allies during the wartime.
Moscow Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Gnist]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Only insofar, as Germany lost a war under a Ns. regime I'd say.

I contest that. Although I certainly don't believe that everything was bad in the third Reich, Hitler was a bad leader, in my opinion, who brought the terrible postwar condition still in hold on Germany (let alone anything else he also did wrong). And not just on Germany, by the way. When you fight your woes, you better do it right, and Hitler fought, but he fought wrong. And I much doubt that he was ever a mature leader. He had the gift of charismatic speech - that, and not his competence, was what made him popular. And many of the flaws of Hitler's are exactly what national socialists still propagate.

Germany wasn't really guilty of bringing on the war, but Hitler was. And many people died in defense of his megalomania. That alone is a great loss.

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Don't forget, many of the enemies Germany had as a Ns. state, it already had before

That is an important point, but it didn't make Hitler a good leader, nor national socialism a good ideology.

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Of course the trick of the question is to wonder about Austria alone, and not Bavaria.

Perhaps it is also worth mentioning here that the Austrian Chancelor Dolfuß was assassinated by Austrian members of the Nazi party, after a previous attempt to assassinate him also by Nazi party members, which is seen as a prelude to the Anschluss.

But to be perfectly fair, I think that there are sufficient elements to consider Austria a part of Germany if we base German unity upon the idea of the union of German states. Howver, the one big question against it, in my opinion, comes from the Nazi camp when these try to define Germany in terms of race, around the Nordic Germanic element. There, the myth that is said to build the nation in fact opens a breech in the German identity, an element of distruction through disengagement.

Indeed, saying Bavarians were Germans, and Austrians not simply does not make sense.
I am well aware of the NS racial policy; Nordicism and such, but I think it's influence was not as big as we think today. Mixing up and falsifying facts with romantic and non-scientific views did not serve Anthropology a good service. There were even jokes about that in WW2 times, like the standard German has to be as blonde as Goebbels, as slim as Göring and as tall as Hitler...

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

I dont know. Danes certainly dont have any feeling of kinship towards northern Germans.

Neither do Germans feel akin with Danes - still many Danes thing Slesvig was theirs and Germans there would be happy to belong to Denmark.
In general I noticed Danes do not feel akin with anyone except themselves

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

But that can also be down to other factors (e.g. post-war). But I definitely agree that Germany is heterogeneous in many ways. A southern/northern division would make more sense in terms of nation, than the one between Austria and the rest of Germany. Perhaps I would be more supportive of independence in a such case, than in the case of Austria.

How does this north-south division of Germany look like in your opinion?
It is no secret southern Germany had a significant Celtic population and was under Roman rule for a while.

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

When it comes to Eastern Germany (Prussian region), I dont know much about that in specific, but my feeling would be they are more like the Northern Germans than anything else. (...)

What is Prussia? Nothing since it exists no more - since 1947.
There is not one single Prussian ethnicity, Prussia had many German and Slavic ethnicities within her borders, since Prussia invaded many German territories such as Slesvig, Holstein, Hanover, parts of Saxony, Hesse etc.pp.
We south-Germans name people from Berlin, Brandenburg (former Prussia) Piefkes, the Austrians call all Germens except themselves Piefkes. We retaliate with "Schluchtenscheißer" (valley-shitters).
Piefkes composed marches like "Königgrätzer Marsch" and "Preußens Gloria" to celebrate the Prussian/northern German victory over Austria/southern Germany in 1866.
http://forum.stirpes.net/classics/13...rsche-mp3.html

[Agrippa]

like the standard German has to be as blonde as Goebbels, as slim as Göring and as tall as Hitler...

Sorry to correct it, but obviously it was "as tall as Goebbels", since he was definitely the smallest, Hitler was not short for his generation.

We retaliate with "Schluchtenscheißer"

The more friendly version is just "Ösi" though

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Indeed, saying Bavarians were Germans, and Austrians not simply does not make sense.
I am well aware of the NS racial policy; Nordicism and such, but I think it's influence was not as big as we think today. Mixing up and falsifying facts with romantic and non-scientific views did not serve Anthropology a good service.

Of course I don't believe for a moment that it had a big influence at all, among the average German. It remains an issue of maginality, so to speak. Which is fortunate.

What is unfortunate is that Germany, having a pre-III Reich solid tradition of nationalism (Jünger, Spengler, Sombart and many others), Nationalism is still still heavily burdened by Socialism (National Socialism, that is).

An interesting reading: From Herder to Hitler.

There were even jokes about that in WW2 times, like the standard German has to be as blonde as Goebbels, as slim as Göring and as tall as Hitler...

So that would be as blond as Hitler, as slim as Hitler, as tall as Goebbels, ... and as Western as Himmler?

In general I noticed Danes do not feel akin with anyone except themselves

The Spanish of the North?

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Sorry to correct it, but obviously it was "as tall as Goebbels", since he was definitely the smallest, Hitler was not short for his generation.



The more friendly version is just "Ösi" though

Ah Yes, thanks for correcting that. Indeed, Ösi is friendly and my standard description for Germans east of Bavaria.Do you know this ugly joke BTW? : The Bavarian is the thing halfway between an Austrian and a human?

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Of course I don't believe for a moment that it had a big influence at all, among the average German. It remains an issue of maginality, so to speak. Which is fortunate.

Hitler's enjoyed his greatest popularity in Bavaria, I doubt it would have been this way if he had ridiculed brown eyed/haired ppl.Richard Walter Darré and his Nordicism had great influence within some SS circles, but not so much in public.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

What is unfortunate is that Germany, having a pre-III Reich solid tradition of nationalism (Jünger, Spengler, Sombart and many others), Nationalism is still still heavily burdened by Socialism (National Socialism, that is).

The fact we do not have any nationalism at all is unfortunate - I am no socialist myself, but I am well aware anyone opposing liberal economics and open-market policy is labelled socialist these days...

Originally Posted by Mynydd

The Spanish of the North?

It seems like. I forgot to mention: A Norwegian friend told me he missed the right way during his Denmark trip and asked an elderly Danish women for the right way - she replied she won't tell a Swede. When he said he was Norwegian she suddelny became friendly, explained the way and even donated him a banknote.How do Spanish behave if a Portugese asks for the right way?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

A Norwegian friend told me he missed the right way during his Denmark trip and asked an elderly Danish women for the right way - she replied she won't tell a Swede. When he said he was Norwegian she suddelny became friendly, explained the way and even donated him a banknote.How do Spanish behave if a Portugese asks for the right way?

With the Portuguese, until recently, it has been a mutual ignoring of each other.

But today I know that a complain is that Spaniards in Portugal don't bother with trying to ask in Portuguese. They speak in Castilian and expect to be understood.

That story would more likely have happened with a French.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

In general I noticed Danes do not feel akin with anyone except themselves

Oh well, I dont know. I suppose many Danes just hate their neighbors. Germans and Swedes are definitely the top 2 hated nations. I suppose my German/Austrian ancestry is at least one reason I dont hate Germans or find them disgusting. But Danes general hatred towards Swedes and Germans is very territorially related - except for WW2 in the case of Germans, we have had many border conflicts and wars with both Swedes and Germans. Or perhaps, a more accurate term than hatred would be antipathy.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

How does this north-south division of Germany look like in your opinion?
It is no secret southern Germany had a significant Celtic population and was under Roman rule for a while.

Look like geographically? Well, the specifics are open for discussion, but I was speaking in general terms, referring to what we mean when we say North Germany and South Germany. My background for saying it was simply that the way I see it, the differences in Germany are not correlated with state right now. It doesnt make sense that Austria is separated from Southern Germany, and that Southern Germany is one with Northern Germany. That is the inconsistency I was referring to. It would make more sense with Southern Germany and Austria versus Northern Germany.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

What is Prussia? Nothing since it exists no more - since 1947.

I know. What I meant is just that the remains of the Prussian ethnicities must be scattered across north and north-east Germany.