Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Discussions on the propaganda, architecture and culture in the Third Reich.
Ecam
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: 20 Jan 2007 22:20
Location: Canada

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by Ecam » 23 Oct 2021 04:25

Hi gebhk,

The problem is that ljadw doesn’t seem to agree with what was posted on the first page. He seems to just make things up as he goes along and dismisses or ignores any information or source that he doesn’t like… but I do remember him spouting conspiracy theories and other nonsense on other threads so I know that he’s not exactly the typical poster on this forum. I mean, he can’t even provide a source when asked. Although my posts can be lengthy (especially when quoting lengthy passages), at least I can provide sources for my claims.

Then why don’t you just drop it? You’ve made your point (‘though I haven’t a clue what that point is) and he’s made his point (‘though I haven’t a clue what that point is). You two don’t get anywhere with each other. Are you going to change his mind? Nope. Drop these ridiculous “debates” and move on.

Failing that, may I suggest that you and your fellow “debaters” continue your discussions via Private Message.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 998
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by George L Gregory » 23 Oct 2021 05:07

Ecam wrote:
23 Oct 2021 04:25
Hi gebhk,

The problem is that ljadw doesn’t seem to agree with what was posted on the first page. He seems to just make things up as he goes along and dismisses or ignores any information or source that he doesn’t like… but I do remember him spouting conspiracy theories and other nonsense on other threads so I know that he’s not exactly the typical poster on this forum. I mean, he can’t even provide a source when asked. Although my posts can be lengthy (especially when quoting lengthy passages), at least I can provide sources for my claims.

Then why don’t you just drop it? You’ve made your point (‘though I haven’t a clue what that point is) and he’s made his point (‘though I haven’t a clue what that point is). You two don’t get anywhere with each other. Are you going to change his mind? Nope. Drop these ridiculous “debates” and move on.

Failing that, may I suggest that you and your fellow “debaters” continue your discussions via Private Message.
No, the whole point in a forum is to discuss and debate. I like to post material for the general readers and not just to make my opponent or whatever you want to call him look silly.

May I suggest you stop telling people what to do? You seem to like to whine about this thread a lot, what have you contributed to it? Nothing AFAIK.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12771
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by ljadw » 23 Oct 2021 06:25

Bauer represented only him self.Thus, there is no reason at all to believe him .You have to find a better source to prove the German identity of the German -Austrians prior to 1866,than a man born in 1881,15 years after 1866 .
And,when Toland was writing conspiracy nonsense about PH, why should one trust what he wrote about Hitler ?
1848 was essentially a social revolution year, there were famines in the whole of Europe,not only in Ireland . not a nationalist one . Look at the Jacquerie in Galicia with more than 2000 deaths .
The silent majority in Europe was not concerned by the activities of a small group of wealthy people.This silent majority wanted a better life .More democracy would not give them a better life .
The ''German Austrians '' did not join the German Empire because no one in Germany wanted them and because they also did not want to be ruled by Prussia .It was better to remain in AH .
How many German Austrians were emigrating to the German Empire ?
If they wanted to become Germans, this was very easy.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 998
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by George L Gregory » 23 Oct 2021 07:29

ljadw wrote:
23 Oct 2021 06:25
Bauer represented only him self.Thus, there is no reason at all to believe him .You have to find a better source to prove the German identity of the German -Austrians prior to 1866,than a man born in 1881,15 years after 1866 .
And,when Toland was writing conspiracy nonsense about PH, why should one trust what he wrote about Hitler ?
1848 was essentially a social revolution year, there were famines in the whole of Europe,not only in Ireland . not a nationalist one . Look at the Jacquerie in Galicia with more than 2000 deaths .
The silent majority in Europe was not concerned by the activities of a small group of wealthy people.This silent majority wanted a better life .More democracy would not give them a better life .
The ''German Austrians '' did not join the German Empire because no one in Germany wanted them and because they also did not want to be ruled by Prussia .It was better to remain in AH .
How many German Austrians were emigrating to the German Empire ?
If they wanted to become Germans, this was very easy.
The same mindless drivel ad nauseam…

Rinse and repeat.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12771
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by ljadw » 23 Oct 2021 14:46

Mindless drivel ??
Your claim that the German speaking population of AH was after the war of 1866 still very sympathetic to Prussia, Pan-Germanism and German unification is proved to be wrong by the fact that after the French DOW of 1870,the governments of Vienna and Budapest made plans for mobilisation and intervention in the war on the side of ... FRANCE . Yes : FRANCE .
The source is : Österreich und der Krieg von 1870/71 (by Jan Hendrik Schmidt ) P 9
''Am 4.August kam nun die Österreichische Kriegsmachinerie richtig in Bewegung und es konnte kein Zweifel daran bestehen,dass die Monarchie nach dem französischen Sieg gewillt war ihre Neutralität aufzugeben und in den Krieg einzutreten . ''
The Austrian war machine was moving and there was no doubt that the monarchy would after a French victory,abandon its neutrality and join the war ( on the French side ) .
If AH was planning to join France in its war against Germany,that proves that the population of AH was still ,4 years after the war, very hostile to Germany and did not want to become an other Reichsland,as would become the Alsace .
The first myth is thrown under the bus . The others will follow .
I see also that you didn't know about the Jacquerie in Galicia (revolt of the peasants ) and to hide this,you are saying that this is mindless drivel .

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 998
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by George L Gregory » 23 Oct 2021 16:14

ljadw wrote:
23 Oct 2021 14:46
Mindless drivel ??
Your claim that the German speaking population of AH was after the war of 1866 still very sympathetic to Prussia, Pan-Germanism and German unification is proved to be wrong by the fact that after the French DOW of 1870,the governments of Vienna and Budapest made plans for mobilisation and intervention in the war on the side of ... FRANCE . Yes : FRANCE .
The source is : Österreich und der Krieg von 1870/71 (by Jan Hendrik Schmidt ) P 9
''Am 4.August kam nun die Österreichische Kriegsmachinerie richtig in Bewegung und es konnte kein Zweifel daran bestehen,dass die Monarchie nach dem französischen Sieg gewillt war ihre Neutralität aufzugeben und in den Krieg einzutreten . ''
The Austrian war machine was moving and there was no doubt that the monarchy would after a French victory,abandon its neutrality and join the war ( on the French side ) .
If AH was planning to join France in its war against Germany,that proves that the population of AH was still ,4 years after the war, very hostile to Germany and did not want to become an other Reichsland,as would become the Alsace .
The first myth is thrown under the bus . The others will follow .
I see also that you didn't know about the Jacquerie in Galicia (revolt of the peasants ) and to hide this,you are saying that this is mindless drivel .
That’s not my claim at all.

But…

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=231738&start=630#p2369980

Try reading the quote by Hamann.

The German Empire included more than just Prussia e.g. Bavaria became a part of it. The German-Austrians were sympathetic to the German Empire NOT Prussia.

Again, the rest of your post is your typical strawman and other types of fallacious arguments.

Your posts are getting even more comical. The reason the Austrians would have sided with the French during the Franco-Prussian War was to get revenge against tbe Prussians because they had defeated them a few years before. That had nothing to do with not feeling German or abandoning the Pan-Germanism idea of a Greater Germany.

Even after the Anschluss in 1938, many Austrians still held anti-Prussian views.
That it was the Viennese Nazis who were the first to feel disillusioned with the reality of the Anschluss is an irony that has been discussed in the previous chapter. As their complaints about “Prussians” and “Piefkes” found their way into everyday conversation, the authorities became worried about the impact of the growing anti-German sentiment on the general population.
Bukey, page 97.
According to the Security Service, resentment of Prussian carpetbaggers was so pervasive that at “Heurigen parties Germans from the Reich under any pretext are annoyed and heckled.
Bukey, page 113.
At first, people approached the problem from the perspective of wishful thinking, hoping that relatives captured by the Russians would receive better treatment than Reich Germans. Rumors circulated in Linz that Austrians had surrendered wearing distinctive badges and armbands, that Austrian prisoners of war in Britain already enjoyed better food and warmer blankets than “Prussians,” and that Churchill intended to unite Austria and Bavaria into a postwar state ruled by Otto von Habsburg. Among middle-class circles, word had it that the Allies were deliberately sparing Austrian cities from aerial bombardment.
Bukey, page 212.
A report from Bregenz indicated that local residents refused accommodations for homeless or displaced “Prussians.”
Bukey, page 218.

Many Austrians despised the Austrians and vice versus, but they were both Germans. Many English despise the Scottish, but they are both British.

You never did answer my question.

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=231738&start=630#p2370159

Was CroGer right about what he posted on the first page of this thread in 2017?

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 998
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by George L Gregory » 23 Oct 2021 16:28

Since you’re now quoting the German language, let’s have a look at what the Austrian historian Ernst Bruckmüller wrote, shall we?
In der Habsburgermonarchie waren die deutschsprachigen Bewohner (vor allem) des westlichen, österreichischen Reichsteiles, also die Mehrzahl der Bewohner des heutigen Österreich, und darüber hinaus die Deutschböhmen, Deutschmährer, und -schlesier sowie deutschsprachigen Bewohner der anderen Kronländer einfach “Deutsche” genannt worden. Das war ebenso praktisch wie einleuchtend, denn die ‚anderen‘ waren eben Tschechen, Polen, Ruthenen, Rumänen, Slowenen Kroaten und Italiener (wir sehen hier von der ungarischen Reichshälfte einmal ab). Aber die deutschsprachigen Österreicher waren nicht nur eine von acht ‚Nationalitäten‘ des zisleithanischen Teilstaates der Monarchie, sie sahen sich doch als etwas anderes, nämlich als die staatstragende, um nicht zu sagen eigentliche Staatsnation dieses Teilstaates, oder sogar der ganzen Habsburgermonarchie.
In the Habsburg Monarchy, the German-speaking inhabitants (above all) of the western, Austrian part of the empire, i.e. the majority of the inhabitants of today's Austria, and also the German Bohemians, German Moravians and Silesians as well as German-speaking inhabitants of the other crown lands were simply called “Germans”. That was as practical as it was obvious, because the 'others' were Czechs, Poles, Ruthenians, Romanians, Slovenes, Croats and Italians (we ignore the Hungarian half of the empire here). But the German-speaking Austrians were not only one of eight 'nationalities' of the Zisleithan sub-state of the monarchy, they saw themselves as something else, namely as the state-supporting, if not to say actual, state-nation of this sub-state, or even the entire Habsburg monarchy.
Ernst Bruckmüller, Das neue Österreich. Die Ausstellung zum Staatsvertragsjubiläum 1955–2005, page 242.
Im Prozeß der Ausbildung konkurrierender sprachnationaler Einheiten innerhalb der Habsburgermonarchie entwickelten die deutschsprechenden Österreicher ein deutschösterreichisches Nationalbewußtsein, das einerseits durch eine emotionale Orientierung an der Dynastie und Staatlichkeit der Habsburgermonarchie, andererseits durch eine (ebenso emotionale) sprachlich-kulturelle Orientierung am „Deutschtum“ gekennzeichnet war.
In the process of the formation of competing linguistic national units within the Habsburg Monarchy, the German-speaking Austrians developed a German-Austrian national consciousness, which was characterized on the one hand by an emotional orientation towards the dynasty and statehood of the Habsburg monarchy, on the other hand by an (equally emotional) linguistic and cultural orientation towards "Germanness".
Ernst Bruckmüller: Die Entwicklung des Österreichbewusstseins.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 998
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by George L Gregory » 23 Oct 2021 18:43

Image

Image

Image

Image

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12771
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by ljadw » 24 Oct 2021 12:56

George L Gregory wrote:
23 Oct 2021 16:14
ljadw wrote:
23 Oct 2021 14:46
Mindless drivel ??
Your claim that the German speaking population of AH was after the war of 1866 still very sympathetic to Prussia, Pan-Germanism and German unification is proved to be wrong by the fact that after the French DOW of 1870,the governments of Vienna and Budapest made plans for mobilisation and intervention in the war on the side of ... FRANCE . Yes : FRANCE .
The source is : Österreich und der Krieg von 1870/71 (by Jan Hendrik Schmidt ) P 9
''Am 4.August kam nun die Österreichische Kriegsmachinerie richtig in Bewegung und es konnte kein Zweifel daran bestehen,dass die Monarchie nach dem französischen Sieg gewillt war ihre Neutralität aufzugeben und in den Krieg einzutreten . ''
The Austrian war machine was moving and there was no doubt that the monarchy would after a French victory,abandon its neutrality and join the war ( on the French side ) .
If AH was planning to join France in its war against Germany,that proves that the population of AH was still ,4 years after the war, very hostile to Germany and did not want to become an other Reichsland,as would become the Alsace .
The first myth is thrown under the bus . The others will follow .
I see also that you didn't know about the Jacquerie in Galicia (revolt of the peasants ) and to hide this,you are saying that this is mindless drivel .
That’s not my claim at all.

But…

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=231738&start=630#p2369980

Try reading the quote by Hamann.

The German Empire included more than just Prussia e.g. Bavaria became a part of it. The German-Austrians were sympathetic to the German Empire NOT Prussia.

Again, the rest of your post is your typical strawman and other types of fallacious arguments.

Your posts are getting even more comical. The reason the Austrians would have sided with the French during the Franco-Prussian War was to get revenge against tbe Prussians because they had defeated them a few years before. That had nothing to do with not feeling German or abandoning the Pan-Germanism idea of a Greater Germany.

Even after the Anschluss in 1938, many Austrians still held anti-Prussian views.
That it was the Viennese Nazis who were the first to feel disillusioned with the reality of the Anschluss is an irony that has been discussed in the previous chapter. As their complaints about “Prussians” and “Piefkes” found their way into everyday conversation, the authorities became worried about the impact of the growing anti-German sentiment on the general population.
Bukey, page 97.
According to the Security Service, resentment of Prussian carpetbaggers was so pervasive that at “Heurigen parties Germans from the Reich under any pretext are annoyed and heckled.
Bukey, page 113.
At first, people approached the problem from the perspective of wishful thinking, hoping that relatives captured by the Russians would receive better treatment than Reich Germans. Rumors circulated in Linz that Austrians had surrendered wearing distinctive badges and armbands, that Austrian prisoners of war in Britain already enjoyed better food and warmer blankets than “Prussians,” and that Churchill intended to unite Austria and Bavaria into a postwar state ruled by Otto von Habsburg. Among middle-class circles, word had it that the Allies were deliberately sparing Austrian cities from aerial bombardment.
Bukey, page 212.
A report from Bregenz indicated that local residents refused accommodations for homeless or displaced “Prussians.”
Bukey, page 218.

Many Austrians despised the Austrians and vice versus, but they were both Germans. Many English despise the Scottish, but they are both British.

You never did answer my question.

viewtopic.php?f=44&t=231738&start=630#p2370159

Was CroGer right about what he posted on the first page of this thread in 2017?
CroGer generalized, exaggerated and said things that were wrong .

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 998
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by George L Gregory » 24 Oct 2021 18:54

ljadw wrote:
24 Oct 2021 12:56
CroGer generalized, exaggerated and said things that were wrong .
Oh, please, do elaborate.

How come no one else challenged what he posted? What do you know that none of us know?

Ecam
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: 20 Jan 2007 22:20
Location: Canada

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by Ecam » 25 Oct 2021 04:12

How come no one else challenged what he posted?
Because no one cares.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 12771
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by ljadw » 25 Oct 2021 05:59

George L Gregory wrote:
24 Oct 2021 18:54
ljadw wrote:
24 Oct 2021 12:56
CroGer generalized, exaggerated and said things that were wrong .
Oh, please, do elaborate.

How come no one else challenged what he posted? What do you know that none of us know?
The Kulturkampf was not a war between protestants and Catholics : he started already before 1871 ..in Bavaria,and there was also a Kulturkampf in Bavaria .The Jesuyits were banned in 1851 in Bavaria .
Bismarck was not anti-religion, but he was depending on the support of the Liberals who were hostile to religion .
The Kulturkampf was a war between 2 religions : the old one ( Catholics and Protestants ) and the new agnostic religion : science .
The educated classes supported science and were hostile to religion .
This is basic history .

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 998
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by George L Gregory » 25 Oct 2021 07:11

ljadw wrote:
25 Oct 2021 05:59
George L Gregory wrote:
24 Oct 2021 18:54
ljadw wrote:
24 Oct 2021 12:56
CroGer generalized, exaggerated and said things that were wrong .
Oh, please, do elaborate.

How come no one else challenged what he posted? What do you know that none of us know?
The Kulturkampf was not a war between protestants and Catholics : he started already before 1871 ..in Bavaria,and there was also a Kulturkampf in Bavaria .
The Kulturkampf refers specifically to the dates 1872-1878 and what happened during that short period of time, not what happened prior to those dates.
Kulturkampf (German: [kʊlˈtuːɐ̯kampf] (About this soundlisten), 'culture struggle') was the conflict that took place from 1872 to 1878 between the government of Prussia led by Otto von Bismarck and the Roman Catholic Church led by Pope Pius IX. The main issues were clerical control of education and ecclesiastical appointments. A unique feature of Kulturkampf, compared to other struggles between the state and the Catholic Church in other countries, was Prussia's anti-Polish component.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulturkampf
The Jesuyits were banned in 1851 in Bavaria .
Source?
Bismarck was not anti-religion, but he was depending on the support of the Liberals who were hostile to religion .
The Kulturkampf was a war between 2 religions : the old one ( Catholics and Protestants ) and the new agnostic religion : science .
The educated classes supported science and were hostile to religion .
This is basic history .
CroGer never even posted that Bismarck was against religion. In fact, he didn’t even mention Bismarck at all.

Again, you’re just making things up. Don’t you ever get bored of trolling?

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 998
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by George L Gregory » 25 Oct 2021 07:12

Ecam wrote:
25 Oct 2021 04:12
How come no one else challenged what he posted?
Because no one cares.
Well you seem to care enough to be whining for the third or fourth time now.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Post by gebhk » 25 Oct 2021 08:42

The Kulturkampf was not a war between protestants and Catholics
That is partially true. It was primarily part of the struggle for separation of church and state and for supremacy between religion and state that had been going on for centuries throughout the world (and continues to this day). The 'kuturkampf was merely its culminatoion in Prussia and, to a lesser extent, the whole of Germany. It is a fact that the 22 laws enacted as part of the Kkpf were often directed (theoretically, at least) as much against the protestant as they were against the catholic religion.

It is also the case that it stemmed from the wider and ongoing conflict between modernity and conservatism. Its proponents stood for the 'modern way of thinking' as opposed to the outdated and it was opposed as much by conservative protestants as it was by catholics.. Thus, depending on the local circumstances, the Kkpf meant different things to different people. For example, while reputedly Bismarck had little enthusiasm for the liberal secular aims of the Kkpf, he saw it as a useful tool for imposing German nationalist agendas, such as the eradication of Polish nationalism. It is perhaps noteworthy that while most of the 'fires' of Kkpf had been doused by 1878, the anti-Polish elements remained in force in the Polish provinces until WW1. It is, perhaps, in this narrow aspect that one can draw a direct line between Bismarck + the Kkpf and Hitler.

However, reagrdless of the underlying philosophy, it is without a doubt also a fact that the Catholic church and its adherents were the primary victims of the Kkpf. For example while schools in catholic areas were subjected to rigorous state supervision, those in protestant ones were by-and-large left alone. This was, I have no doubt, bacause the Catholic Church was the greatest force supporting those values that the modernist secular state found anathema. For example, ironically maybe, the German nationalist would be offended by the Caholic Church's internationalism in their own back yard but also by it serving as a prop for Polish national identity in the Polish provinces.
The Kulturkampf was a war between 2 religions : the old one ( Catholics and Protestants ) and the new agnostic religion : science .
The educated classes supported science and were hostile to religion .
This is as much a simplistic nonsense as the claim that the Kkpf was a conflict between protestants and catholics. Science is NOT a religion. It is a method for processing information/knowledge. It makes as much sense to claim that there is a war between science and religion as there is to claim there is a war between boiling and vegeterianism. The vast majority of scientists (ie those who use science in their work) were and are are religious. To claim that the 'educated classes' were hostile to religion also seems dubious to say the least, I would like to see the evidence for that.

Return to “Propaganda, Culture & Architecture”