In answer to my question, "Was there no fully armed German military invasion?" You replied “No”. What? No hundreds of tanks? No thousands of assorted artillery pieces? No hundreds of aircraft? No tens of thousands of infantry armed with rifles, LMGs, MMGs, HMGs, 60mm and 81mm mortars? You cannot write such nonsense and expect to be taken seriously, surely?
You go on, “Wehrmacht soldiers were used, but there was no need and there were many faults.” So what? Whether they were needed or not, and regardless of the many faults, they were still engaged in a full scale military invasion as organised by von Manstein. Even a reserve division was mobilized to support them!
You continue, “In fact, if any resistance had occurred the Wehrmacht soldiers would have been in trouble.” From what? The mighty Austrian Army, with its thousands of tanks and aircraft and its massive reserves of manpower? Or maybe the formidable Austrian Navy? Even the Austrian general staff didn’t expect to be able to hold the Traun Line for more than a few days.
You say, “Guess what? No such thing happened. Why? Austrians approved of the annexing of Austria to the Reich.” Errrr, not exactly. As already explained, some Austrian Army deployments were made, but Schussnigg, recognizing the hopelessness of Austria’s military situation, “resolved not to shed German blood” and resigned.
When I asked "Were the local Nazis not thugs (and sometimes worse) who had already proved themselves more than willing to shed Austro-German blood to get their way in 1934?", you replied, “This is a question that is impossible to answer.”
No it isn’t! Firstly, it is an undeniable fact that the Austrian Nazis killed several hundred people during their failed uprising in 1934, including the then Austrian chancellor, Dolfuss, who died in agony when they refused him medical treatment. Secondly, on p.28 of your favoured source, Bukey, he says, “The Nazi brawlers – tens of thousands of them – fanned out into Jewish neighbourhoods, looting shops and beating up hapless passersby.” The Austrian Nazis were homicidal thugs in 1934 and don’t seem to have mellowed much by 1938!
When I asked, “Did the Nazi Party recognize any legitimate opposition in Germany?", you replied, “Yes.” And then promptly proceeded to contradict yourself by telling us of political opponents being “dealt with by the Gestapo.”
Let us try again to get a straight answer from you. I repeat, "Did the Nazi Party recognize any legitimate opposition in Germany?" I don’t think those rounded up by the Gestapo can have been regarded as being regarded as “legitimate opposition”, do you? Otherwise they would presumably not have been rounded up!
When I asked, "Were the Nazis liberal democrats tolerant of opposition?" you replied, “Stop trying to act as if I know nothing about how the Third Reich worked. Of course there were not liberal democrats.” However, you again failed to address the bit about “tolerant of opposition”. Would you care to do so now?
You continue, “….but the idea that the Anschluss was only approved of because of mass intimidation, arrests and propaganda is utter nonsense.” Absolutely right, these were certainly not the “only” reasons. Luckily, this was not my idea and I therefore don’t have to defend it.
You post, “Austrian Jews hiding and Austrians that were classified as eligible to vote (those considered to be ethnic Germans) hiding are two separate things.” Yup. What they have in common, in our context, is that they were all declared ineligible to vote in the Nazi plebiscite. Michael Mills (who is an effective revisionist) thinks there were 400,000 of them, or about 8% of the electorate.
You ask, “Do you have any evidence of ordinary Austrians (excluding Austrian Jews and Austrian Gypsies) of hiding from the Nazis during the time of the Anschluss?” No, I haven’t investigated it, but as Bukey says, “How many tears were shed behind closed doors is impossible to say.”
You post, “Thousands upon thousands of people turning up is "overwhelming", it is a large number of people.” It may be “a large number of people”, but “thousands upon thousands” is not necessarily “overwhelming” in a country of 6-7 million. Let us review Linz and Vienna, yet again. According to your Bukey, only about 40% of the population of Linz, the hometown of Hitler’s youth, were in the crowds and in much larger Vienna, the capital, this fell to about 17%.
You post, “OK. By your logic, thousands of Austrians welcome the German soldiers but somehow disapprove of the actual Anschluss?” Nope, not by my logic, so I don’t have to defend this propostion.
When I asked, "Bukey gives no source for any such survey, just for the single photo concerned. It would require an enormous amount of work to look at a minimum of 2 million photographs, many of which contain dozens or hundreds of faces. We are talking of studying tens of millions of faces. Does this sound plausible?", you replied, “You said that you had the book. Also, the page is available via Google books and clearly shows a source is cited. You are being dishonest. The source given is "Botz, "Eine deutsche Geschichte 1938 bis 1945? Österreichische Geschichte zwischen Exil, Widerstand und Verstrickung," 23. The recently discovered photograph depicts a grouup of unenthusiastic onlookers at Innsbruck. Even so, a glance at the foreground reveals only one or two dejected figures. The others appear perplexed or detached. In the background one can spot the face of a woman swooning in ecstasy. See Kirk, "Workers and Nazis in Hitler's Homeland," 37."
Yup, that is exactly what I have in my book and conforms with what I posted; “Bukey gives no source for any such survey, just for the single photo concerned.” You are also giving the source for the single photo concerned, as I said, but not for any survey of two million photos. I could, of course, follow your intemperate lead and call you “dishonest” right back, but I suspect you have just misread my post.
You ask, “Are you seriously trying to claim that every single photo is just Nazi propaganda?“ Nope. What I actually wrote was, “almost all the photos we see of these self-selecting, pro-Anschluss and/or pro-Nazi crowds are probably official photos”. Indeed, yes, “There are plenty of private photographs from collections”, but we don’t seem to see many of them by comparison.
You post, “You are confusing party's policies and public opinion.” Could you be a bit more specific, please?
You post, ”The Austrian Nazi Party was the only party that openly advocated the Anschluss.” Over 1934-1938, apparently yes. As the Nazis appear not to have enjoyed majority support in Austria during this period, this also calls into question the proposition that support for Anschluss was “overwhelming”, even given that support for Anschluss went beyond just the Nazi Party.
You post, “The German soldiers and other forms of intimidation…...” Well, at least you recognize that the German soldiers were a form of intimidation.
The following is a little too vague and/or confused to address with confidence; “Austrian resistance towards certain things is not the same as Austrian resistance to the Anschluss. Also, your examples of Austrian resistance clearly shows that if the Austrians had genuinely disapproved of the Anschluss there would have been at least some form of resistance. What about left-wing politicians and folk? I have not read about any opposition even though the Anschluss was an formed by the ideas of German nationalism.” Could you tidy it up a bit, please? After all, a person with my “poor reading comprehension” needs all the help he can get!
You post, “If you are going to simply dismiss the Nazi plebiscite as 100% rigged and unreliable (at all) then there is no numbers use as sources. I have repeatedly said this when referring to percentages.” So have I. If we had some sort of authoritative national survey of Austrian public opinion, either through free and fair plebiscite, or reputable national opinion polls, we might have something firm to go on regarding percentages. But we haven’t. It is this very lack of hard evidence that is making your “overwhelming” proposition unsustainable so far.
You finally post, “However, other evidence such as anecdotal, reports, etc, has been used by historians to state quite clearly that overall the percentage would still have been very high and although would not have been up to the standard of what the Nazis would have liked it would have still been a substantial majority.”
I can live with a close, but more carefully qualified, variant of that, “However, other evidence such as anecdotal, reports, etc, has been used by historians to suggest that overall the percentage could still have been very high and, although (it) would not have been up to the standard that the Nazis would have liked, it might have still been a substantial majority”