You post, “1. You wrote: "I am glad you can empathize with my situation, but it looks as though we must share this burden together!" Are you trolling?
” Nope, just telling it like it is!
You post: “I have told you time and time again, not every single Austrian had to show their face in the street. Nevertheless, thousands of Austrians turned up on the streets to greet the German soldiers, Hitler and the Nazis during the Anschluss. Fact.
” Yes, FACT
. However, it is also a FACT
, in so far as your favoured source Bukey goes, that only about a 40% minority of local Austrians were in these crowds at Linz, the city of Hitler’s youth, and only quite a small minority of about 17% in the crowd in the capital, Vienna. “Thousands
” is, in fact, a considerable underestimate. Even in Linz there were tens of thousands and in Vienna hundreds of thousands. The problem is that there were nearly two hundred thousand people in Linz and approaching two million in Vienna. It is also a fact that Bukey says we don’t know how many tears were shed at home. And yet, knowing this, you still persist with absolute certainty that Austrian support for Anschluss was “overwhelming
You post, “3. Yes, there were arrests and murders carried out between the initial Anschluss proclamation and the plebiscite. However, this was only a minority of people and there was no real resistance.
” Well, there was no real resistance in Bohemia-Moravia or Denmark, either. By your peculiar rationale this would mean they also welcomed German occupation! In case you hadn’t noticed, Schussnigg had ordered no resistance, which would have been hopeless anyway, even if the army remained loyal to him, because Austria had only 10% of the population of the Alt Reich, had no allies and its armed forces had had much less time to throw off the WWI treaty restrictions on their size than the Wehrmacht and were therefore proportionally even smaller than their German equivalents.
Why do you write, “only a minority
” as if mass arrests and occasional murders were of no significance? What number of murders, arrests and exclusion from voting do you consider necessary for you to drop the “only
You post, “I am not sure where the 400,000 figure is from but 8% is still a minority. Please do explain how you can logically remove that 8% from the Nazi plebiscite result when they did not participate in the plebiscite…..?
You have posted some peculiar things on this thread, but that takes the biscuit! Are you really saying that you accept totally the Nazi action in excluding 8% of the population from voting through the occasional murder, tens of thousands of arrests and hundreds of thousands of exclusions and that this does not effect the legitimacy of the Nazi plebiscite in any way? That to you these are non-persons, just as they were to the Nazis? These were Austrian citizens who were not allowed to vote by the Nazis. Of course they must be added to the courageous minorities who either abstained, spoilt their ballots or voted against Anschluss.
You also ask, “…..how do you know that every single one of those people would have voted "No"?
” I don’t, but given that they were murdered, arrested or excluded from voting in the month before the Anschluss plebiscite, it seems more than a little unlikely that the Nazis would have done these things to people likely to swell the pro-Anschluss vote in any numbers, doesn’t it?
You post, “Perhaps this again is another good example of your poor reading comprehension.
” You really aren’t doing very well on the “I-don't-normally-personally-attack-people
” front, are you?
You post, "Also, have a read of https://www.sudd.ch/event.php?lang=en&id=at011938
" I have. And….?
You wrote: "(Contrary to popular belief, one can compare apples and oranges. The mistake would be to equate them) You really aren't too bright.
” Perhaps not, but why, then, are you failing to make your point successfully against such low grade opposition after a good two months?
Drum roll, please. I will now compare the two fruit before your very eyes:
One can accurately compare (OED: “estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between
”) the two fruits by saying, for instance, “Oranges tend to have thick skins compared to apples
However, one cannot accurately equate (OED: “consider (one thing) to be the same as or equivalent to another
”) them by saying, “Oranges are the same as apples
You post, “If you have any problem with the ballot paper I found, type into Google the words on the ballot paper and there are several other references available.
” I don’t, but thank you for asking. Indeed, I have extended my gratitude to you several times for finding an example. Thanks, again. (If you have further need of my validation, I would be happy to thank you in later posts as well. You have only to ask.)
You post, “7. Read what you have posted, you claim the use of 'overwhelming majority' to be "extreme
". Can we have the direct quote, please. Then I will be in a position to address this. Anyway, at least you are no longer claiming that I called you or respected authors “extreme”.
You post, “I think what this really comes down to is the fact you are reluctant to accept the use of 'overwhelming majority' because it "defends" (according to you) the Nazi plebiscite result.
” Nope, you think wrong. I am happy to accept any level of Austrian support for Anschluss provided the evidence stands up to scrutiny. Undoubtedly the higher the real level of Austrian support for Anschluss, the greater the credibility of the Nazi plebiscite. I have no problem with this. All that matters is the facts. Unfortunately, most of your evidence (really mostly unsupported secondary opinion rather than sourced primary evidence) doesn’t stand up to scrutiny and is unsupported by other sources you are content to ignore.
Earlier you posted, “I do have other books that are specifically about the Anschluss and will copy and paste some material in the not too distant future.
” What happened to them? Have they so little in them to support your “overwhelming
” proposition that that you have to rely entirely on the internet? There’s no shame in that, but you have produced so little from the promised books that one can’t but wonder if they really exist!
You post, “You have defended Schuschnigg's plebiscite over and over again. I'll go by abductive evidence, if it walks like a duck...
” you would still think it was a goose!
I have only defended Schussnigg’s plebiscite relative to the Nazi plebiscite. Both were flawed, but the Nazi one seems even more flawed than Schussnigg’s, if only because he had far fewer resources to corrupt the process than did the Nazis, who additionally used “a 100,000 man occupation army, a security police contingent of 40,000 men, arrested tens of thousands of Austrian opponents, excluded hundreds of thousands of others from the voting process, purged the upper echelons of government services, lowered the voting age, bribed the electorate, etc., etc.
You claim that Stackelberg “was clearly writing about the Austrian plebiscite result.
” Yup, but in the whole of the Greater Reich, not just Austria.
You conveniently failed to repeat your quote from him that proves this, so I will: ” A plebiscite throughout the new Greater Reich approved the Anschluss by 99 per cent. While this vote was obviously skewed by government pressures and the absence of a true secret ballot, there can be no doubt but that Anschluss enjoyed overwhelming popular support.
And my reply, with added bold type for your benefit: “And why wouldn’t it? About 92% of the electorate of which he is talking were Alt Reich Germans. Why wouldn’t they be overwhelmingly in favour of acquiring a new province bloodlessly? What Stackelberg does not say here is that Austrians were overwhelmingly in favour of Anschluss. He is talking about the “new Greater German Reich”, not Austria specifically.
You wonder where the 92% came from? It is because about 92% of the electorate for Stackelberg’s “plebiscite throughout the new Greater Reich
” were not Austrians.
Finally you write, “The government pressures were not needed in the Reich itself but were aimed towards the Austrians.
” Yes! Exactly! Why this differential? Because Austrians were presumed to be less keen on Anschluss than were the Germans and required the extra pressure, even after 8% of them, according to Michael Mills, had been excluded from voting!