Is Austria Germany?

[Lutiferre]

I've always considered Austria as a part of Germany, even though its a sovereign state(s), but never really questioned the idea.

So, tell me what you think folks. Is Austria Germany?

[Marcus Marulus]

I would say: What else?

[Aramis]

I have no opinion on this. The Austrians I've meet didn't like the idea about Austria being Germany and them being Germans. They defended their Austrian identity. That's at least the experience I had in Vienna.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Vincent

I have no opinion on this. The Austrians I've meet didn't like the idea about Austria being Germany and them being Germans. They defended their Austrian identity. That's at least the experience I had in Vienna.

That is understandable. I would compare that to the example that in Denmark, Germans are very stigmatized, being German is stigmatized. Our word for German can even be used as a curse word, and the worst thing a Swede can call a Dane is "halvtysker" (half German).

But history must have something to say about this. The similarity/identicalness between Germany and Austria can hardly be a coincidence.

[Yago]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

But history must have something to say about this.

History undoubtedly has much to say about it.

The similarity/identicalness between Germany and Austria can hardly be a coincidence.

The languages are so similar that they almost sound the same.

Apart from that, there seems to be clear differences between a Baltic.. erh, Prussian... uh, East German and an Austrian. The difference between the Austrian and the South German (e.g. a Bavarian) is not such. But yet again, there must be something to be said about the difference between the East German that we mentioned first, and the South German.

And, how does the North German relates to all?

[3rdEye]

Deutschland I associate historically with Otto von Bismarck's unifying effort of Deutsche; a result of Prussian magnitude among other things.

Österreich I associate historically with the Hapsburgian monarchy.

From that point of view, they are two nations, not one.

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by Gnist

Deutschland I associate historically with Otto von Bismarck's unifying effort of Deutsche; a result of Prussian magnitude among other things.

Österreich I associate historically with the Hapsburgian monarchy.

From that point of view, they are two nations, not one.

I dont think the rulers of Austria in a specific time period can sum up their cultural identity nor national history. This circumstance would not make Austrians non-German, in the case that there indeed is good otherwise reason to consider them German, and their nation German.

Germany is relatively heterogeneous, and that Austrians have a separate history doesnt necessarily make them non-German. Almost any region has a separate history, has had a nation on its own, and been ruled by others then they are now.

[Tuco]

I would say 'yes' but it's not really an easy answer.

You have to define what 'Germany' is in the first place, the way I see it (as non-German), Germans from north are quite different people from Germans from south and I would say that Bavarians have more in common with Austrians than with northern Germans. And in a same way northern Germans have probably more in common with Danes than with Bavarians or Austrians. So it's really hard to say what Germany is, historicaly it's, as it was said already, result of unification under Bismarck, but there are of course other things that are important beside history like langauge, culture, descent...

Anyway, as I pointed out already, I'm not a German and it's not really my problem, I'd say that it would be the best if Austrians decide in which state they want to live.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

That is understandable. I would compare that to the example that in Denmark, Germans are very stigmatized, being German is stigmatized. Our word for German can even be used as a curse word, and the worst thing a Swede can call a Dane is "halvtysker" (half German).

But history must have something to say about this. The similarity/identicalness between Germany and Austria can hardly be a coincidence.

Interesting. Is it due to the Second World War or to the Schleswig-Holstein controversy?

Originally Posted by Gnist

Deutschland I associate historically with Otto von Bismarck's unifying effort of Deutsche; a result of Prussian magnitude among other things.

Österreich I associate historically with the Hapsburgian monarchy.

From that point of view, they are two nations, not one.

Austria, ruled by Hapsburgs (hence the "Hapsburg Monarchy"), was for centuries part of the of the German Empire (Deutsches Reich), called also Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Then in 1815, the German Empire having been abolished nine years earlier, it became part of the German Union (Deutscher Bund), whereas the notion of the empire became restricted only to the "Austrian Empire", now only one among the many constituent parts of the Deutscher Bund. Austria was thrown out of the Bund in 1866, by Prussia, following Austria's defeat in the Austro-Prussian war which happened in the same year. After that date the Hapsburgs became more focused on the non-German lands they ruled (Hungary, Croatia, Transylvania), lands that were never part neither of the Holy Roman Empire, nor of Deustcher Bund. Thus Austro-Hungarian Monarchy came into being (1867), while the rest of the former German Union was united in a new Bismarck's, Prussia-centered German Empire. It was called little German solution (kleindeutsche Loesung), while the grossdeutsche Loesung would have been a German Empire including Austria as well.

After the First World War and the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, Austrian part of the former imperial parliament voted unification with Germany, but the winners of the First World War did not allow it to happen because they thought it would strengthen Germany too much. The rest of the story with Hitler's Anschluss, the subsequent war and the second (imposed by the victorious Allies) Austrian Republic is all too well known.

Historically, culturally and spiritually it seems to me that Austria is German (what else, as I already asked a rhetorical asked question?) The new identity forged by the post-war Austrian state is another matter.

[Aptrgangr]

Austrians are Germans, they are of the same tribe like the Bavarians (Bajuvarian) with exceptions in the very west, those are of Alamanni origin, and there is a significant Slavic minority too.
The fact they themselves do not consider themselves as German in many, if not most cases, has to do with serious brainwashing and re-education.
Both, in the FRG and the Republic Austria the ruling classes do their best to make alternative history and one political view obligatory. In Austria e.g. all documents and movies showing the re-union in 1938 was frenetically celebrated were destroyed, one copy showing Hitler being acclaimed in Vienna survived that action. But actually Austrians themselves wanted to join the "Deutsches Reich" after the Habsburg Empire collapsed in 1918, the Entente powers did not allow this, today's claim Austria was annexed and the first vitim of Hitlers imperialist policy is ridiculous. I have a banknote originating from 1918/19, it states "Deutsch-Österreich" - German-Austria, to make sure it is not valid in countries of the former Imperium Austriacum.To go back further in history, in 1848 there were attempts to found a German national state including Austria, it failed because of the dynasties, the ruling Princes, and not because people would not have wanted it.
I have family in Austria, anytime anyone of them or one of their friends claim they were not Germans I reply they were indeed Balcanics - due to a an unknown reason they do not like this... in fact denying the own heritage caused an identity crisis.

[Tuco]

Ah.. Balkan again. I heard that too, 'with Vienna, Balkan starts'.

Another proof how 'Balkan' doesn't really mean anything, or, even better, it can mean pretty much anything.

[Yago]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Austrians are Germans, they are of the same tribe like the Bavarians (Bajuvarian) with exceptions in the very west, those are of Alamanni origin, and there is a significant Slavic minority too.

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

Both, in the FRG and the Republic Austria the ruling classes do their best to make alternative history and one political view obligatory. In Austria e.g. all documents and movies showing the re-union in 1938 was frenetically celebrated were destroyed, one copy showing Hitler being acclaimed in Vienna survived that action. But actually Austrians themselves wanted to join the "Deutsches Reich" after the Habsburg Empire collapsed in 1918, the Entente powers did not allow this, today's claim Austria was annexed and the first vitim of Hitlers imperialist policy is ridiculous. I have a banknote originating from 1918/19, it states "Deutsch-Österreich" - German-Austria, to make sure it is not valid in countries of the former Imperium Austriacum.

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.

[Agrippa]

Even the Social Democrats wanted a union with Germany after WWI and Dollfuss spoke about "Austrians being the better Germans", just to make clear about what Austrian identity we speak about before WW2. Mainly the Communists had an idea of a "non-German Austria".

The Habsburgs were themselves a German aristocratic line and saw themselves as such until they lost first the title of the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (because of Napoleon) and secondly their participation in the German Union ("smaller German solution" of Bismarck), to point to some dates of importance.

The question of Austria is never one of being "Austrian or German", but being either, like Bavarians and the like. However, the identity after WW2 was a different and if talking about many people of today in Austria, they have a complex if dealing with "Germans", first because they no longer belong to that "big brother" officially and secondly because they wanted not being associated with Germans after WW2 for obvious reasons ("first victim" etc.).

But before WW2 most Austrians which were against a union with Germany were simply against the current system and policy of Germany of that time, but it was no principal question. That it became just after WW2 and the following re-education and propaganda, which was not just "anti-Ns." in Austria, like in Germany, but also "anti-German", with a particular emphasis of an own independent identity and "not being German". The only pre-re-education base for this was the antipathy of Austrians and Southern Germans against the Prussians, the "Piefke". But then again this never applied to the same degree for Bavarians.

Inside of Austria are differences too, there is even an Allemanic part, namely Vorarlberg, which was originally closer to the Swiss-German than the Bavarian-Austrian South-Eastern flank. So after all things are more complicated, but the main reason for todays Austrians having a problem with their German ethnicity lies in the history of WW2 and the time afterwards and doesnt predate it in any case, since in the monarchy, todays Austrians were always just the Germans, as there were other ethnicities in the Habsburgian empire (Czechs, Slovenians etc.).

There, the myth that is said to build the nation in fact opens a breech in the German identity

Rather not actually. It was all about the post WW order, which was a question of power (the allies had it) and goals. The reason Austrians had no big problem with "being no longer German" was that they had too much problems while being part of Germany, namely the war, the destruction, the bombs, the hunger, the dead soldiers and civilians - high losses, and of course the stigma of "being German" which was nothing to be proud about in the Allied propaganda. So they were not alienated because of the Ns. "racial standards", but because of the reality and policy of post WW2 Europe.

[Marcus Marulus]

Could it be said that Freedom Party, I mean the old Freedom party while Joerg Haider was its president, implicitly if not explicitly, stood for Germandom, that is, for the reverting of Austria to its roots? Were its voters that part of Austrians who did not bode well with the post-war ideology of the rejection of Germandom?

[Yago]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Even the Social Democrats wanted a union with Germany after WWI and Dollfuss spoke about "Austrians being the better Germans", just to make clear about what Austrian identity we speak about before WW2. Mainly the Communists had an idea of a "non-German Austria".

This sentiment of germanness is not clearly a national one, but more like that of different peoples belonging to an imperial idea.

The question of Austria is never one of being "Austrian or German", but being either, like Bavarians and the like. However, the identity after WW2 was a different and if talking about many people of today in Austria, they have a complex if dealing with "Germans", first because they no longer belong to that "big brother" officially and secondly because they wanted not being associated with Germans after WW2 for obvious reasons ("first victim" etc.).

But before WW2 most Austrians which were against a union with Germany were simply against the current system and policy of Germany of that time, but it was no principal question. That it became just after WW2 and the following re-education and propaganda, which was not just "anti-Ns." in Austria, like in Germany, but also "anti-German", with a particular emphasis of an own independent identity and "not being German".

One detail that has not been mentioned yet, is that Austrians welcomed the Anschluss amidst a climate of a strong economic crisis and high unemployment. Around 600,000 unemployed out of a population that, 75 years later, is of 8.2 million.

So it looks like there is a pattern in the Austrians calling the Anschluss an annexation to portray themselves as the first victim of Nazism, after WWII, and in welcoming unification with Germany under the name of reunification at a time of a strong crisis, before WWII.

The only pre-re-education base for this was the antipathy of Austrians and Southern Germans against the Prussians, the "Piefke". But then again this never applied to the same degree for Bavarians.

It must surely be more than "anthipathy", as if it was a mere child's game. Don't you think so?

Rather not actually. It was all about the post WW order, which was a question of power (the allies had it) and goals.

I'm sure that they did, but we are talking of an unrelated issue here. It can be even convenient, but you cannot blame it everything to the same evil, as if automatically.

The reason Austrians had no big problem with "being no longer German" was that they had too much problems while being part of Germany, namely the war, the destruction, the bombs, the hunger, the dead soldiers and civilians - high losses, and of course the stigma of "being German" which was nothing to be proud about in the Allied propaganda. So they were not alienated because of the Ns. "racial standards", but because of the reality and policy of post WW2 Europe.

You are wrong if you think that I meant that in such a simplicized way. Nazis did embrace theories of Nordic supremacism, and they subsequently started to develop more pseudo-scientific theories to excuse the "un-nordicness" (thus "un-germanness", according to such definition, or at least "less germanness") in Germany, as they defined German nationhood in terms of nordicness. Which is insane.

The tragedy is that Nazism did not stopped there, but it also came to virtually replace nationalism for Germany.

Draw your own conclusions, if you are able to see it from a non burdened point of view.

[Agrippa]

This sentiment of germanness is not clearly a national one, but more like that of different peoples belonging to an imperial idea.

Depends on the time you are speaking about and of course, similar things could be said about other people and nations at different times.

It must surely be more than "anthipathy", as if it was a mere child's game. Don't you think so?

Knowing it, it has a strong childish sentiment. Its often about jokes, about personal issues and experiences ("arrogant Piefke tourists" etc.) and so on, similar things can be observed elsewhere too...

I'm sure that they did, but we are talking of an unrelated issue here. It can be even convenient, but you cannot blame it everything to the same evil, as if automatically.

This case is a clear case though. The outcome of WW2, in various ways, led to this sentiment. It wasnt there before, it wouldnt have been without the war or if the war would have ended differently, simple as that.

You are wrong if you think that I meant that in such a simplicized way. Nazis did embrace theories of Nordic supremacism, and they subsequently started to develop more pseudo-scientific theories to excuse the "un-nordicness" (thus "un-germanness", according to such definition, or at least "less germanness") in Germany, as they defined German nationhood in terms of nordicness. Which is insane.

Its a common misconception to think about Ns. ideas and theories being like a uniform block. Actually there were many competing ideas, as well as uniform ones. Any debate about this comment of yours would lead to far and going into another direction, which is actually unrelated to this issue insofar, as if it was that way or not, is unimportant for the outcome, which was defined by the loss of the war and all horrible circumstances which Austrians had to live through during it and afterwards, as well as the geopolitical and ideological situation in the post-WW environment of Austria.

Could it be said that Freedom Party, I mean the old Freedom party while Joerg Haider was its president, implicitly if not explicitly, stood for Germandom, that is, for the reverting of Austria to its roots? Were its voters that part of Austrians who did not bode well with the post-war ideology of the rejection of Germandom?

After the war, new generations of Austrians were raised with the idea of a unique Austrian nation which is non-German, but soon afterwards, there were all those Austrians which had their German ideas still in their head.

Now for those we have to consider, that they had to or freely absolished Ns. and went back to the traditional parties in their great majority, which were and mostly still are the "Christian-Social" OEVP and the "Social-Democratic" SPOE. Both parties were no explicitly "un-German" before the war, but both became so after the war, to defend the independent position of Austria. So by embracing this parties and the way of life they tried to give to their followers, those which were conservative or socialist, became automatically Austrian patriots which were no longer allowed to think of themselves as Germans like before the war.

So like in Germany you have to consider it being related to the peaceful, socially stable and "Wirtschaftswunderjahren" ("years of the economic miracle"). And those people could tell their children and grandchildren how horrible it was "as Germans" after "the Anschluss", while meaning primarily the bombs and deaths of the war, and how much better their life became afterwards. That the children and grandchildren should be thankful for their prosperous and secure life, which they hadnt, because of the "evil German empire" and what followed.
This generation rarely if ever had genocides or ideological aspects in mind, they mainly thought about the war and their personal or family's, social environments etc. losses and horrors. The connotation of "German = War and suffering", "Austrian = secure and prosperous" became omnipresent and made the re-shaping of Austrias identity, mainly through the great parties of the OEVP and SPOE, much, much easier, as most people are finally simple beings, I would compare it with conditioning.

The question is finally not even about Austria being an independent state or not, but how defining the Austrian people - after WW1 it was clear it was a German state, since it was the "German trunk" of the Habsburgian empire. Afterwards, mainly for reasons mentioned above, not.

The FPOE united many "German thinking" elements of various shades, but one has to consider, it was not the same as the "Volkspartei" or "Social Democrats", which had more than those something to offer in post war Austria, with better social positions, jobs even ("Proporz") and of course, they had a peaceful social concept acceptable for their clientele. So many of the early "German oriented" people, even many former Ns., went rather to those big parties and simply subordinated their nationalism under other socio-political concepts of the hour - similar to Germany by the way, just with the additional context of denying the own "German identity". And since they subordinated it, the following generations, the children of the "lost generation of silent fathers and grandfathers", many of which had a broken identity because of the war and as P.O.W., were easy to form by the mainstream political concepts, which included, in Austria, to abandon the idea of a German Austria.

[Yago]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Its a common misconception to think about Ns. ideas and theories being like a uniform block. Actually there were many competing ideas, as well as uniform ones.

There are no misconceptions. Only serious doubts as to why there were contradicting direction on specific issues.

In my opinion, NS should not be trusted one inch.

Any debate about this comment of yours would lead to far and going into another direction, which is actually unrelated to this issue insofar

That's nothing of a problem. Posts are split from threads all of the time, as soon as they develop into a different issue.

[Yago]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Depends on the time you are speaking about and of course, similar things could be said about other people and nations at different times.

Of course. Though no two nations are the same and we are not speaking of other nations at other times.

Knowing it, it has a strong childish sentiment. Its often about jokes, about personal issues and experiences ("arrogant Piefke tourists" etc.) and so on, similar things can be observed elsewhere too...

Yes, it sounds like what I've heard about German tourists in other countries. But no, I wouldn't say that it is childish there.

This case is a clear case though. The outcome of WW2, in various ways, led to this sentiment. It wasnt there before, it wouldnt have been without the war or if the war would have ended differently, simple as that.

There seems to be more than one sentiment, with different origins. That makes it more difficult to a one explanation equal for all.

as if it was that way or not, is unimportant for the outcome, which was defined by the loss of the war and all horrible circumstances which Austrians had to live through during it and afterwards, as well as the geopolitical and ideological situation in the post-WW environment of Austria.

I know. I've heard stories. Austrian children used to come to Spain through the Falange's Frente de Juventudes, to stay in with Spanish families.

So like in Germany you have to consider it being related to the peaceful, socially stable and "Wirtschaftswunderjahren" ("years of the economic miracle").

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!"

[Lutiferre]

Originally Posted by M.R.

And in a same way northern Germans have probably more in common with Danes than with Bavarians or Austrians.

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

Originally Posted by Marulus

Interesting. Is it due to the Second World War or to the Scheswig-Holstein controversy?

My bet would be (post-)WW2, more than anything else. But I cant speak for the pre-war generations. I'd be interested to know how people saw the Germans in the 1800s, and early 1900s, and earlier. I know that at a certain time, the Danes attempted/considered selling Jutland and possibly the Jutes for labor, to Germany (German dukes). I dont know the details of this event, as I have forgotten. I doubt this could pose much significance for this view of Germans today, as it extends to all of Denmark, and possibly also other Nordic countries. But I just know, for as long as I have lived, Germans are viewed upon as disgusting people. The word "tysker" (German) gives even me an "emotional" (if you can call it that) connotation in the back of my head, generally a "disgusting" feeling. Not something I have brought on myself, as I admire Germany as a nation, and their numerous achievements, and prosperous cultural history. I would think it would be interesting for any Germans to hear this.

Originally Posted by Marulus

Historically, culturally and spiritually it seems to me that Austria is German (what else, as I already asked a rhetorical asked question?) The new identity forged by the post-war Austrian state is another matter.

Same for me.

The only pre-re-education base for this was the antipathy of Austrians and Southern Germans against the Prussians, the "Piefke". But then again this never applied to the same degree for Bavarians.

One thing I have never quite gotten cleared out: is Northern Germany viewed upon as Prussian? Or strictly North-eastern/Eastern Germany? In my ignorance, I would classify Northern Germany as tribally Anglo-Saxon.
And is there a general dislike towards these "Piefke" among Southern Germans and Austrians, today?

[Yago]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre

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. 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.

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.

As every other nation, Germany has its own idiosincracy and its own characteristical particularities. However, the problem arises when this is clumsily redefined under the racialist terms of the extreme post-romantic nationalism of National Socialism. It is a deconstructrionism.

My bet would be (post-)WW2, more than anything else. But I cant speak for the pre-war generations. I'd be interested to know how people saw the Germans in the 1800s, and early 1900s, and earlier.

During the Middle Ages, anyone approximately north of the Garona (Garonne river) and into modern Germany was called a 'Frank', in Spain.

I know that at a certain time, the Danes attempted/considered selling Jutland and possibly the Jutes for labor, to Germany (German dukes).

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

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

One thing I have never quite gotten cleared out: is Northern Germany viewed upon as Prussian? Or strictly North-eastern/Eastern Germany? In my ignorance, I would classify Northern Germany as tribally Anglo-Saxon.

I'm not sure if maps help here.