Is Austria Germany?

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

I understand, the Bosnians were anything but unhappy when Habsburg-Austria annexed Bosnia, the Bosnians had a good reputation - despite the religious, and, of course, ethnic/racial diffferences. Stil the Habsburg empire was a dungeon of nations

Gavrilo Princip was surely very happy about it. Seriously, you can't speak about Bosnians as a whole, since each group there has it's own viewpoint.

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by M.R.

Gavrilo Princip was surely very happy about it. Seriously, you can't speak about Bosnians as a whole, since each group there has it's own viewpoint.

I mixed Bosnians up with Bosniaks....
Did Gavrilo Princip consider himself as Bosnian anyway? I don't think so....

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

I mixed Bosnians up with Bosniaks....
Did Gavrilo Princip consider himself as Bosnian anyway? I don't think so....

He was a Serb from Bosnia, Bosnian Serb... His crew of trouble makers was known as 'Mlada Bosna' (Young Bosnia).

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

I see one big similarity: Ulster (i.e. Northern Ireland) is not part of a united Irish state, Austria is not part of a German union.

Well, yes, did I say something else?

The Habsburg became a dungeon of nations, like Prussia, most of it's activities had to do with dynastic policies, and not with nationalism.
Today's Bavaria - once a kingdom within the German Empire, now a federal state, is a product of dynastic politics either, there live Franks, Swabians and Bavarians.

I didn't deny it, and I'm well aware that this whole story has to do with individuals from the House of Habsburg, and not the Austrians. Yet, some people tend, through out time, to identify them selfs with the state they are living in, and not their real ethnicities, easpecialy when this state has become a huge empire, like in Austrias case. They are just proud of it's 'glory', and like to be seperated from the 'common folks' who live outside it.

You have to admit this was the a reason, first step, that lead to a Austrian nationality we have today. And of course brainwashing has been used to achive it.

But Ireland... it was a British genocide. That is my only point.

I understand, the Bosnians were anything but unhappy when Habsburg-Austria annexed Bosnia, the Bosnians had a good reputation - despite the religious, and, of course, ethnic/racial diffferences. Stil the Habsburg empire was a dungeon of nations.

At the end of the day, most Croats and Bosniacs were happy. Serbians to a lesser extent. I answered this more detailed below.

Originally Posted by M.R.

Austrian empire was a great European empire?

Given the number of terriories they conquered, the fame they earned, I would say yes, it was a great empire. (The map shows Austria-Hungary, but I posted it since Austria dominated in every point in this union)

Originally Posted by M.R.

Gavrilo Princip was surely very happy about it. Seriously, you can't speak about Bosnians as a whole, since each group there has it's own viewpoint.

The viewpoints didn't differ among ethnicities. You can't put it that simplified. They were other groups of viewpoint division, like f.e. 'Mlada Bosna' wich wasn't Serbian but Bosnian, so members have been from all nationalities. On the other hand we could say that most Croats were happy, while most Serbs were unhappy with it, yes. Bosniacs seemed to be indifferent at the begining, but liked being part of Austria-Hungary later.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

I mixed Bosnians up with Bosniaks....
Did Gavrilo Princip consider himself as Bosnian anyway? I don't think so....

Everyone who lives in Bosnia considers himself Bosnian, since it is a region, not ethnicity. He was part of 'Young Bosnia', like M.R. said, so he did consider him self has Bosnian (as Serbian also of course).

Btw. the archduke was assassinated at Vidovdan (28. 6.). It's St. Vitus day, and a holiday of great importance for Serbs.

[Delbáeth]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

The border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland is an artificial border, it divides Ulster in two parts.

Well, actually it devides Ulster in two and one 3rds, but I get what you mean.

Many Irish people living in Northern Ireland do not consider themselves as Irish but as something like "British", "Ulstermen" or what do I know...anything but Irish. That's due to brainwashing and loyalities to foul and corrupt power structures. I remind you Presbyterians like Henry Joy McCracken are considered as Irish rebels too - it's a shame so many Irish Protestants were bought by the British; still the claim this conflict was a religious one, Catholics vs. Protestants, is a hoax. Protestant Irish that consider themselves anything else than Irish are brainwashed - and here I "bend a bow" to Germany, the border between Germany and Austria is an artificial one; Austrians that consider themselves being anything else than German are brainwashed too. Austrians are predominantly of Bajuvarian origin, like the Bavarians this side of the border; it makes no sense having a border between us. Over the centuries Germany was governed from our capital Vienna - which suddenly no longer is a German town and never was? That does not make sense, and there are still some Austrians that are proud Vienna already was an important German town in times Berlin still was a Slavic fisher-village. There are intense brainwashing campaigns over here and there - the goal is to keep the people conform and the corrupt elites in power.

The main problem with this is that Loyalists/Unionists are not Irish, but rather immigrant Germanic-English/Lowland Scots settlers from across the sea, with no connection to Ireland other than their fabricated construct that they are decendant of Scots.

I have not made up my mind whether or not Austria is a Nation, but I do recognise it as a state, a sovereign state at that. Whether or not they are part of the German Nation, or are their own Austrian Nation, I cannot say.

[M.R.]

Originally Posted by Vincent

Given the number of terriories they conquered, the fame they earned, I would say yes, it was a great empire. (The map shows Austria-Hungary, but I posted it since Austria dominated in every point in this union)

They earned the fame of being the dungeon of nations run by bunch of degenerate which stole money from other nations, just look the architecture of Vienna, made out of stolen money. The number of territories they conquered was indeed big, but it wasn't really only conquering, for example, when did Austria conquer Slovenia?

The viewpoints didn't differ among ethnicities. You can't put it that simplified. They were other groups of viewpoint division, like f.e. 'Mlada Bosna' wich wasn't Serbian but Bosnian, so members have been from all nationalities. On the other hand we could say that most Croats were happy, while most Serbs were unhappy with it, yes. Bosniacs seemed to be indifferent at the begining, but liked being part of Austria-Hungary later.

Well yes, it's more complicated, my point was that there wasn't only one viewpoint.

[Arthur Gordon Pym]

Originally Posted by Vincent

In Austria it's their own history, a success as a great European empire that created a somewhat unique identity outside the German one (this does not apply on all Austrians I guess).

As far as I know, something like "the separate Austrian identity" started to be formed only after 1866, when Austria was ousted from the German Union and even more so after 1871, when Bismarck's Second Empire was created, to the explicit exclusion of Austria. Before that Austria, if I am not mistaken, even used the same flag and the same anthem as the rest of Germany (I am not sure, maybe Aptrgangr can confirm or refute this). Or one can argue that prehistory of Austria's separation goes back to 1806, when Napoleon forced the abolition of Holy Roman Empire and the separate Austrian Empire was created.

Originally Posted by Vincent

But I can assure you that even if the Turks had never conquered the Balkans, the medival Bosnian state would continue to exist appart from the Croatian and Serbian one, leading to the same rejection we have today, though in lesser numbers.

Maybe, but certainly not in its present-day borders. Because what is today considered as North-Western Bosnia (Bihać area) was never part of the medieval Bosnian Kingdom. It was conquered by Turks only in 1592 (the Bosnia proper already in 1463) and added to the Bosnian vilayet. Inspite of that, many centuries afterwards this area was referred to as "Turkish Croatia" (meaning: "part of Croatia under Turkish occupation"), Turska Hervatska, Türckisch-Croatien, Croatia Turcica, or whatever, on old maps. Most of the local Muslim/Bosniak population in Bihać area (Bihaćka krajina) are Croats who converted to Islam after 1592, which is attested by their mostly ikavian speech, a very markedly Croatian linguistic characteristic. The Church of Saint Anthony in Bihać was converted into mosque called Fethiye (from the Turkish feth, "conquest") shortly after the Turkish conquest, but traces of the old church are still visible. Present day borders between Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina in that area are borders of the Habsburg-Ottoman truce of 1700.

The similar story goes for Western Herzegovina. It was part of the medieval Croatian kingdom, although later, shortly before the Turkish conquest of Bosnia (1463), that area, along with most of Dalmatian hinterland, fell under the suzerainity of the Bosnian Kingdom. Here too the frontier was drawn around 1700 and it divided - artificially - the same people. There is no linguistic difference nor any in customs or in anything else between the Croats of the Dalmatian hinterland and of the Western Herzegovina.

However, I do not deny that the Bosnia proper (central Bosnia, around Vrbas and Bosna-river, wherefrom Bosnia derives its name) was an entity apart, neither Croatia nor Serbia.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

The Habsburg became a dungeon of nations, like Prussia, most of it's activities had to do with dynastic policies, and not with nationalism.

The political mentality of the Habsburg Monarchy/Austria-Hungary was a relict of the medieval so-called patrimonial conception of state, whereby the state was identified the king and his family (dynasty, that is) and all of the inhabitants were simply "subjects" (podanici, Untertanen etc). All the lands were simply patrimonies of the "Great King and Emperor Francis Joseph" (or whoever was monarch in the respective period). No room for any national emancipation or national policy in that case, obviously.

Some "Catholic" nostalgics tend to glorify the Monarchy because of its having been allegedly very "Catholic" (despite all of the kind of Jansenist and Freemasnic personalities who were very active in the highest ranks of power in that monarchy, for the last two hundred years of its existence, at least), the anti-Catholic crowd tends to attack the monarchy virulently for this very same reason. Whilst certain modern lefist multiculturalists praise the old monarchy for its "multiethnicity and diversity".

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Today's Bavaria - once a kingdom within the German Empire, now a federal state, is a product of dynastic politics either, there live Franks, Swabians and Bavarians.

It became kingdom only with Napoleon, didn't it? That may explain some things.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

I understand, the Bosnians were anything but unhappy when Habsburg-Austria annexed Bosnia

Austria militarily occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1878, following mandate given to it by the Berlin Congress held in that very same year. Bosnia and Herzegovina was to remain Ottoman de iure, but de facto administered and militarily held by Austria-Hungary. The Ottoman army withdrew (because the Ottoman Empire had officially agreed upon the decisions of the Berlin Congress), but the local Muslim Bosnians (aka Bosniaks by today's terminology) yielded a fierce resistance to the invading Austrians. With time, however, the seem to have acquiesced to the Austrian rule, starting to consider it some kind of "benevolent rule". Croats, ie. Bosnian Catholics, did not resist much the Austrian rule, whilst the Serbs, ie. Bosnian Orthodox were mostly reluctant to it, although Austrian administrattion made many concessions to them. In 1908 Bosnia was formally annexed by Austria, which caused the international tensions, not only with the Ottoman Empire (which was not willing to forfeit its de iure possession of that land), but also with Serbia who had claimed Bosnia for herself.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Still the Habsburg empire was a dungeon of nations.

Yes, indeed. Throughout 19th century it had even assumed many totalitarian traits.

Originally Posted by M.R.

Austrian empire was a great European empire?

Great can have several meanings. Originally it simply means "big" (German gross, Dutch groot etc) - hence Great Britain, to distinguish it from Brittany. Great was also the Mongol Empire, for that matter.

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Did Gavrilo Princip consider himself as Bosnian anyway? I don't think so....

Gavrilo Princip was a Bosnian Serb who was imbued with Serbian nationalist ideology that sought to annex Bosnia to Serbia and did what he did out of Serb nationalist convictions.

Originally Posted by Vincent

'Mlada Bosna' wich wasn't Serbian but Bosnian, so members have been from all nationalities.

Untrue. It was a Serb nationalist organization, whose avowed goal was to bring about the unification of Bosnia and Serbia and ultimately of the entire "South Slavdom", under the Serbian leadership (Serbia - the Piedmont of the Balkans, as it was called by some people back then). It had ties to the conspirational organization from Serbia called Crna ruka ("black hand") or Ujedinjenje ili smrt ("unification or death"), which pursued similar goals and had Freemasonic ties. Influential circles (many of them of Masonic inspiration as well) from Britain and France were in favour of creation of a unified state of "South Slavs", what ultimately came about in 1918. However, not all members of Mlada Bosna were Serbs. Some of them were Bosnian Croats, some even Bosniaks/Muslims. They were simply attracted by an ideology which promised a national state of "South Slavs", they did not mind it being a Serb-dominated country. I could call them traitors or something of the kind, judging from today's perspective, but it may be simply observed that every period brings certain ideological delusions of its own (many were Communists later etc.)

Originally Posted by Vincent

Btw. the archduke was assassinated at Vidovdan (28. 6.). It's St. Vitus day, and a holiday of great importance for Serbs.

The first Kosovo battle (in 1389) allagedly happened on that day and in Serbian national historical conscience that day has a great importance. Some explanations say that a decision to parade on that day in the streets of Sarajevo was a deliberate provocation on the part of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand aimed at Serbs, since the relations between Serbs and the Austrian Monarchy were already very strained from the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908. Franz Ferdinand's security was not very serious, it appears, which offered fertile ground for different speculations and theories as to the whole thing having been planned in advance...

Originally Posted by Delbáeth

The main problem with this is that Loyalists/Unionists are not Irish, but rather immigrant Germanic-English/Lowland Scots settlers from across the sea, with no connection to Ireland other than their fabricated construct that they are decendant of Scots.

But not all Protestants living in the occupied six counties of Ulster are Unionists/Loyalists, right? As far as my knowledge goes, some Irish Protestants were heros of the Irish national liberational struggle, for example, Archibald Wolf Tone. I heard there are still today some Protestants living in the occupied part of Ireland, who are in favour of the unification of all Ireland (so unionists of different sort) and feel Irish - a minority of Protestants. Is that true?

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by M.R.

They earned the fame of being the dungeon of nations run by bunch of degenerate which stole money from other nations, just look the architecture of Vienna, made out of stolen money. The number of territories they conquered was indeed big, but it wasn't really only conquering, for example, when did Austria conquer Slovenia

My only point was that it had many territories, and was therefor well-known. So let's say then it was a huge empire, and not 'great'.

Originally Posted by Marulus

As far as I know, something like "the separate Austrian identity" started to be formed only after 1866, when Austria was ousted from the German Union and even more so after 1871, when Bismarck's Second Empire was created, to the explicit exclusion of Austria. Before that Austria, if I am not mistaken, even used the same flag and the same anthem as the rest of Germany (I am not sure, maybe Aptrgangr can confirm or refute this). Or one can argue that prehistory of Austria's separation goes back to 1806, when Napoleon forced the abolition of Holy Roman Empire and the separate Austrian Empire was created.

It might be so. But you've only confirmed what I wanted, that "the separate Austrian identity" existed, and it was formed by their own rulers, citizens due to some events that happned around them (f.e. when they lost from Prussia in 1870. and where driven out of the German union, like you already said). The essence of my post wasn't when, but how.

Maybe, but certainly not in its present-day borders.

That's why I said medieval Bosnian state.

As Bosnia proper could be considered the area wich was ruled by Ban Kulin in 1203 (the pink and purple areas in the map below).



So, the point isn't how large it would be, but that it probably would have existed until now.

However, I do not deny that the Bosnia proper (central Bosnia, around Vrbas and Bosna-river, wherefrom Bosnia derives its name) was an entity apart, neither Croatia nor Serbia.

I think it was settled by the Croat tribe, but the population in old Bosnia (around rivers Bosna and Vrbas) still was composed mostly by pre-Slavic native population. Culturaly and liguistical it was always close (or the same?) as Croatia.

Untrue. It was a Serb nationalist organization, whose avowed goal was to bring about the unification of Bosnia and Serbia and ultimately of the entire "South Slavdom", under the Serbian leadership (Serbia - the Piedmont of the Balkans, as it was called by some people back then). It had ties to the conspirational organization from Serbia called Crna ruka ("black hand") or Ujedinjenje ili smrt ("unification or death"), which pursued similar goals and had Freemasonic ties. Influential circles (many of them of Masonic inspiration as well) from Britain and France were in favour of creation of a unified state of "South Slavs", what ultimately came about in 1918. However, not all members of Mlada Bosna were Serbs. Some of them were Bosnian Croats, some even Bosniaks/Muslims. They were simply attracted by an ideology which promised a national state of "South Slavs", they did not mind it being a Serb-dominated country. I could call them traitors or something of the kind, judging from today's perspective, but it may be simply observed that every period brings certain ideological delusions of its own (many were Communists later etc.)

Was Mlada Bosna situated just in Bosnia? In this case it was 'Bosnian' (as for the location). I know it's goal was the unification with Serbia, so it is a Serbian organisation, yes. I made a mistake here by writing "'Mlada Bosna' wich wasn't Serbian but Bosnian". I just should have been more clear. By 'Serbian' I meant the territory of Serbia proper, not the Serbian ethnicity as such, and Bosnian Serbs. By calling it 'Bosnian, not Serbian' my intention was to define it as an organisation whos members are not exclusively Serbs (you confirmed it). Sorry the misunderstanding

The first Kosovo battle (in 1389) allagedly happened on that day and in Serbian national historical conscience that day has a great importance. Some explanations say that a decision to parade on that day in the streets of Sarajevo was a deliberate provocation on the part of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand aimed at Serbs, since the relations between Serbs and the Austrian Monarchy were already very strained from the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908. Franz Ferdinand's security was not very serious, it appears, which offered fertile ground for different speculations and theories as to the whole thing having been planned in advance...

Yes, why not?! I never think about these kind of theories though.

[kay]

I think the problem lies with the fact that in & at the end of the process of nation forming that set in very late in this case (1806 after the formal end of the Holy Roman Emipre [of German Nations] in the Reichsdeputationshauptschluß), only one part of that conglomerate emerged as being called Germany even though Austrians are of the Germanic tribes as well (at least by modern standards- course they also had that Celtic connection)...from a certain standpoint the Austrians even would have more right to call themselves Germans than the Germans themselves!-simply because the House Hapsburg that was their ruling family (in Spain even called: the "Casa D'Austria") were Holy Roman Emperors for nearly 500 years without any nameable intercessions, and their capital Vienna was also the capital of the whole Holy Roman Empire of German Nations (the insignia of that empire- the Crown and the Holy Lance are still in the treasury of the Hofburg in Vienna until this day).
Cf these wiki links:
Emperors list: Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
General Info: Holy Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...Yet today, nearly no Austrian would think of himself as a German for the reason that the nation-names are much more in the public conscious than the old "tribal" affiliations. At the end of the Hapsburg Monarchy that was still a bit different and the thought of re-merging with Germany was a valid option..(though also soon discarded- after all: the Prussian kings had fought wars for centuries with the Emperors (and Empresses- see Maria Theresia) of Austria (and won nearly all of them cause Prussia via the Friedrichs succeeded in building a modern efficient army and also were more homogenous in their ethnicity than that monstrum of the K&K Monarchy...).

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by kay

-simply because the House Hapsburg that was their ruling family (in Spain even called: the "Casa D'Austria")

Funny that it was Charles V, who had been educated with Germans, as King of Spain whereas his brother Ferdinand I who was educated by his Spanish grandfather (Fernando de Aragón) became King of Austria.

[kay]

Yeah I think these things are a bit hard to understand for many nowadays. The Habsburgs were a large family and their territories included very many of todays nations like the Netherlands, Burgundy, (even Venice and Tuscany for a time), and of course the Austrian "Stammlande" (heretitary lands and fiefdoms)...not to speak of the over-sees colonies...if you look at e.g. France whose borders were pretty much defined from a very early time and also centralised with its captiol Paris, not only the posseission of the Habsburgs but also (to stay more on topic) the "Reich" was actually very fragmented and (in latter case) symbolic constructs...

p.s. Btw, Spains pretty cool- I myself am Austrian and I loved your captiol of Madrid a lot- theres so much energy there-and tasty food too: everyone was friendly and nice-and also I was very surprised that many remember our nations' old affiliations!