Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

Discussions on the propaganda, architecture and culture in the Third Reich.
George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

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

Post by George L Gregory » 12 Oct 2021 08:36

ljadw wrote:
12 Oct 2021 06:42
I do not want a proof that is showing that the ''Austrians '' were historically regarded as Germans, by non Austrians , but a proof that the Austrians regarded themselves as Germans before 1914 .
What German nationalists are claiming is totally irrelevant .
And, about the Sudeten Germans ( a neologism ,as they were not called Sudeten Germans before 1914 ) ,there was a big difference between them and the Austrians ,before 1914 .
In 1867 the Austrian writer Franz Grillparzer wrote:
Als Deutscher ward ich geboren, bin ich noch einer? Nur was ich Deutsches geschrieben, das nimmt mir keiner.

I was born a German, am I still one? Only what I have written in German, nobody takes away from me.
Why did he write such a thing?

Then he wrote a few years later in 1871:
Ich bin kein Deutscher, sondern ein Österreicher.

I’m not German, I’m Austrian.
What you seem to be ignoring is that language played a huge part in the feeling of German-speakers belonging to the German nation which is why so many Austrians considered themselves to be Germans. That’s why after they unification of Germany, Austrian nationalism started to emerge, but it wasn’t until after WW2 that it became so prominent.

Why did Franz Joseph call himself a GERMAN Prince and not just an AUSRTRIAN Prince?

The whole point in The German Question was how to achieve the unification of German-speakers into a nation-state. Until 1866 when the German war (Austria vs Prussia) started, the Austrians were regarded as Germans like Bavarians, Prussians, etc, and Austria was considered a German state.

I have shown you maps showing that ethnic Germans formed the majority ethnic group in the Austrian territories. I have shown you various polls which show that a distinct Austrian national identity took a lot of time and it wasn’t until a few decades after WW2 that the vast majority of Austrians did not consider themselves to be Germans. I’m not sure what more you want…

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 12 Oct 2021 11:36

The German Prince FJ fought in 1866 against Prussia and refused in 1870 to help the Germans who were attacked by France and in 1914 he was very,very reluctant to declare war on Russia .During the two Agadir crises,this German Prince refused to help Germany .
With such an ally, Germany did not need enemies .
You have shown me maps showing that the majority of the inhabitants of the territories who became later the republic of Austria had German as native language, which does nor mean that they were ethnic Germans ,and the number of such people were only a minority (36 % ) of the inhabitants of Cisleithania .
These maps do not prove that these people considered themselves as Germans,as German .Only a meaningless part of them voted for a pro Anschluss party .
And that the Austrian identity was developing only after 1918,does not mean that before 1918 there was in these territories a thing as German identity .Most inhabitants of Cisleithania had no identity ,the same for most inhabitants of Transleithania .
And, again : there is a difference between speaking a language and to belonging to the nation of that language .The overwhelming majority of the Irish people speaks English but does not consider itself as English .
It was the same for the inhabitants in the 19th century of the present republic of Austria .And, it is the same for the present inhabitants of Austria who speak mostly German,but do not consider themselves as German .
The inhabitants of Lower Austria speak German but do not consider themselves as German .
It is on you to prove ( and what German nationalists say is not a proof ) that their ancestors of the 19th century who also did speak German,considered themselves as German .
You have given no such proofs because such proofs do not exist ,but there are a lot of indications for the opposite .

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

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

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

ljadw wrote:
12 Oct 2021 11:36
The German Prince FJ fought in 1866 against Prussia and refused in 1870 to help the Germans who were attacked by France and in 1914 he was very,very reluctant to declare war on Russia .During the two Agadir crises,this German Prince refused to help Germany .
With such an ally, Germany did not need enemies .
You have shown me maps showing that the majority of the inhabitants of the territories who became later the republic of Austria had German as native language, which does nor mean that they were ethnic Germans ,and the number of such people were only a minority (36 % ) of the inhabitants of Cisleithania .
These maps do not prove that these people considered themselves as Germans,as German .Only a meaningless part of them voted for a pro Anschluss party .
And that the Austrian identity was developing only after 1918,does not mean that before 1918 there was in these territories a thing as German identity .Most inhabitants of Cisleithania had no identity ,the same for most inhabitants of Transleithania .
And, again : there is a difference between speaking a language and to belonging to the nation of that language .The overwhelming majority of the Irish people speaks English but does not consider itself as English .
It was the same for the inhabitants in the 19th century of the present republic of Austria .And, it is the same for the present inhabitants of Austria who speak mostly German,but do not consider themselves as German .
The inhabitants of Lower Austria speak German but do not consider themselves as German .
It is on you to prove ( and what German nationalists say is not a proof ) that their ancestors of the 19th century who also did speak German,considered themselves as German .
You have given no such proofs because such proofs do not exist ,but there are a lot of indications for the opposite .
It was during WW1 that Joseph called himself a German Prince, why would he have done that if he didn’t consider himself to be a German?

Again, look up the historical definition of “German”. In Central Europe, at least until 1871, it was someone who spoke the German language as his or her native language.

I’m really not sure why you’re finding it so difficult to understand that Austrians were regarded and thought of themselves as Germans and then after the end of WW2 the Austrians began to develop their own national identity. This is history 101.
Im Diskurs um eine österreichische Identität und Nation sind geistesgeschichtlich viele verschiedene, einander teils widersprechende Konzepte entwickelt worden. Sie reichen vom Konzept der Österreicher als östlicher Gruppe des bairischen Stammes und Österreichern als Teil einer deutschen Nation bis hin zu dem von Österreichern als eigenständiger primordial-ethnischer Nation. Heute ist die Vorstellung von einer separaten und eigenständigen österreichischen Nation vorherrschend, wobei deren Grenzen je nach ideologischem Nationsbegriff variieren.

In the discourse about an Austrian identity and nation, many different, partly contradicting concepts have been developed in terms of intellectual history. They range from the concept of Austrians as an eastern group of the Bavarian tribe and Austrians as part of a German nation to that of Austrians as an independent primordial ethnic nation. Today the idea of ​​a separate and independent Austrian nation is predominant, whereby its borders vary depending on the ideological concept of the nation.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Österreichische_Identität

Why don’t you try reading that article for yourself? It makes everything so clear.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

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

Post by George L Gregory » 12 Oct 2021 17:51

Although you reject what German nationalists thought back in the 1800s, I came across tbe following about Schonerer:
As a twenty-four-year-old, Schonerer witnessed the Hapsburg Empire’s defeat by Bismarck’s Prussia in the battle of Konigsgratz in 1866. Like many German-Austrians of his generation, he felt Austria’s exclusion from the German Confederation* was a disgrace but not a definitive
fact. In other words, he was among those who believed that the timely “perfecting” of the German Reich by an Anschluss of Austria’s German parts was in the natural course of events. Schonerer wrote letters of tribute
to his idol in Berlin and did not even budge when he received an unmistakably reserved response in which Bismarck let him know that he found any tempestuous Austrian-German nationalism politically inopportune. The statesman Bismarck was not interested in utopian nation¬
alist dreams. He did not dream of letting the Schonerians jeopardize his Double Alliance policy.
Brigitte Hamann, Hitler’s Vienna

Since you’re ignoring my question about why Franz Joseph called himself a “German Prince”, in the same book:
In order to make this idea of his a reality, Kaiser William II had to go through extraordinary political troubles, for many princes were by no means enthusiastic about this concerted action. After all, the Austrian emperor was not a “German” prince in the sense of being a part of the German empire; as a multinational empire, the Dual Monarchy could hardly be called “German.”

Political difficulties during the princes’ visit were likely to arise in several areas, inasmuch as the wounds of Koniggratz still had not healed.* Despite their loyalty to the House of Hapsburg, many were wistfully looking toward the successful German empire, all the more so because the Slavs’ influence in Cisleithania was increasing and surpassing that of the Germans. At the very least, the pan-Germans planned to announce their desire for an Anschluss with the German empire with black-red-gold flags, the greater German colors of 1848, and to pay their respect to “their” emperor: the prince of Hohenzollern, not the one of Hapsburg.

Emperor Franz Josef had a deep distrust of any kind of German nationalism in his empire. According to aide-de-camp Margutti, he held on to the view of “the Germans in Austria as the embodiment of ‘Austrianism’ ”and found any attempt by “his” Germans to get closer to Berlin
utterly exasperating. “Even insignificant, harmless external signs in that direction could thoroughly annoy him.” “With his hawk’s eye” he invariably recognized black-red-gold flags immediately, “which would instantly cloud his good mood.” “Whenever Germandom was displayed in such a manner, it would hit the emperor’s Achilles’ heel, for behind it he would invariably sense pan-Germanic tendencies.”

There was much excitement before the princes arrived to pay their respect so spectacularly. Large formations of soldiers prevented German national rallies. Tens of thousands of people thronged the sides of the streets when William II, accompanied by the empress, two of their sons, and a convoy of fifty-four people, arrived in Vienna and started moving toward Schonbrunn. This was overly taxing on the police as well as on official protocol, especially because on the same day all the other princes were arriving from Germany, whose constant jealousies among each other were no secret.

In his address, forty-nine-year-old William II paid homage to the Austrian emperor as a model for “three generations of German princes”— thus, as if there had been no Koniggratz, including the Hapsburgs among the line of German princes as a matter of course. In this precarious situation Franz Josef responded with utmost sensitivity. In his thank-you speech he ignored the eminent visit’s German-national aspect and constrained himself to the dynastic factor: he expressed his view of the emInent visit as “a festive demonstration of the monarchic principle ... to which Germany owes its power and greatness.” He then praised the value of the by now already thirty-year-old double alliance, happily expecting it “only to pursue peaceful goals.” The exciting day ended with an evening celebration with military music and eight thousand singers in the park of Schonbrunn Castle. For security reasons the police closed the expansive park, which was usually open. The ten thousand guests, who had all been personally invited, were painstakingly checked.
I’m really not sure what you’re finding so difficult to comprehend. The Austrians who were excluded from the newly formed German Empire were called “Austrian-Germans”, “German-Austrians”, “Germans in Austria” or just simply “Austrians” which people knew meant a type of Germans. It’s really basic history 101.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 12 Oct 2021 20:53

'Which people knew meant a type of Germans ": which people knew this ?
And, the'' Austrians '' were not only excluded from the new German Empire, they refused to be a part of this new German Empire .
And who were these'' Austrians '' (or better the inhabitants of Cisleithania with German as native language ) ?
The Austrian Empire did no longer exist in 1871 : it was replaced by the Double Monarchy .
Were these'' Austrians '' those who lived in what now is the Austrian republic ?
Did the German speaking inhabitants from Burgenland, which was a part of Transleithania also belong to these mysterious ''Germans " ?And what about the German speaking people of what is now Chechia and who British/American ''historians '' called erroneously Sudeten Germans?Were they also a part of these mysterious Austrians ? And what about those who did not have as native language German,but still were not reluctant to an Anschluss with Germany ?
Almost half of the inhabitants of Cisleithania who had as native language German, did not live in what today is Austria,and what was till 1918 a conglomerate of separate duchies, principalities,etc who had no common government or parliament .
How can you call these people Austrians, while Austria did not exist as a separate /non separate state ?
There were no Austrians and there was no Austria till 1918 .No Austrian-Germans, no German-Austrians .
You are talking about the inhabitants of a non existent state.
Reality was that they were citizens of Styria, Tirol, Vorarlberg, Carinthia, Salzburgerland, Upper and Lower Austria, territories who were a part of Cisleithania and Cisleithania was bigger than the present Austria and had more inhabitants .
In 1910 (last census ) Cisleithania had 28 million inhabitants of whom less ( or more ) than 10 million with German as native language and only a small majority of these 10 million lived in what is today Austria and what in 1910 was not called Austria .
The population of Czechia (Böhmen und Mähren ) was some 10 million in 1910, of what is NOW Austria some 6 million .
There were no Austrians, thus they could not be Germans .
Both the Austrian and the German identity existed only after WWI : no Austrians means no Germans .The inhabitants of Carinthia did not consider themselves as Austrians, thus they could not consider themselves as Germans . They considered themselves as Carinthians .
There were 15 states in Cisleithania of which only 8 with a majority of people with as native language German .

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

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

Post by George L Gregory » 12 Oct 2021 20:59

Okay ljadw, I’ve had enough of your trolling for now. Maybe I’ll entertain you when I’m bored at some point in the future.

I’ll let the readers make up their minds about the subject.

I’m not the only one on here who is fed up with your conspiracy theories, misinformation and lies. However, you are the gift that keeps on giving so it’s okay to have a bit of fun with you every now and then.

Cheerio for now. :thumbsup:

Ecam
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 20 Jan 2007 22:20
Location: Canada

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

Post by Ecam » 13 Oct 2021 04:16

I’ll let the readers make up their minds about the subject.

OK, I’ll bite - 40 pages of nonsense.


Cheerio for now. :thumbsup:

Bye, have a nice long vacation!

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

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

Post by George L Gregory » 16 Oct 2021 21:47

Ecam wrote:
13 Oct 2021 04:16
I’ll let the readers make up their minds about the subject.

OK, I’ll bite - 40 pages of nonsense.


Cheerio for now. :thumbsup:

Bye, have a nice long vacation!
I don’t recall you ever posting on this thread.

I’m not taking a long vacation, I’m sorry to disappoint you.

I’m just waiting for ljadw to explain why he’s finding it so difficult that Hitler wasn’t annexing countries and territories just because some people in those areas spoke German in them because in his mind he was vindicating the error of the German unification in 1871 in not creating Großdeutschland of all German people. He and others didn't care that he was born in Austria because when Hitler was born the notion of Germans living in separate German states had been the norm for centuries considering he was born just under 20 years of German unification.

The Prussian victory over the Austrians in the 1866 German war which ended any Austrian influence in German politics and subsequently unifying Germany whilst excluding Austria and the Austrians didn’t stop the Austrians from being Germans. The fact that Austria wasn’t a part of Germany when he was born didn’t matter. He, like the vast majority of other Austrians back in the late 1800s (as well as the Austrians in the early 1900s) were still a part of German nation but not of the German state.

Hitler’s decisions during the Third Reich when it came to annexing lands (prior to the invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia in 1939) all had a historical basis.

Until he does that then I’m no longer going to reply to his balderdash.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 18 Oct 2021 11:02

I see : A.J.P. Taylor was writing balderdash,when he was saying in The Habsburg Monarchy 1809-1918,P 264,
'' in Central Europe simply speaking a particular language or a dialect thereof did not necessarily entail a conscious loyalty to a particular larger ethnic or national group .''
Or maybe the balderdash is to say that the vast majority of the Austrians in the late 1800s were still a part of the German nation ?
Source : Nationalist Politics and the Dynamics of State and Civil Society in the Habsburg Monarchy 1867-1914 PP 35 and 36 .

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

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

Post by George L Gregory » 18 Oct 2021 12:45

ljadw wrote:
18 Oct 2021 11:02
I see : A.J.P. Taylor was writing balderdash,when he was saying in The Habsburg Monarchy 1809-1918,P 264,
'' in Central Europe simply speaking a particular language or a dialect thereof did not necessarily entail a conscious loyalty to a particular larger ethnic or national group .''
Or maybe the balderdash is to say that the vast majority of the Austrians in the late 1800s were still a part of the German nation ?
Source : Nationalist Politics and the Dynamics of State and Civil Society in the Habsburg Monarchy 1867-1914 PP 35 and 36 .
Is your first language English? All he’s stating there is that for example a Pole speaking German wasn’t a German.

Okay, well I can’t view that book, but I can cite, reference and quote Taylor from the book he wrote about the Habsburg Monarchy he wrote.
Joseph II had no doubt as to the character erf' his Empire: it was to be a German state. He said: “I am Emperor of the German Reich; therefore all the other states which I possess are provinces of it.

[…]

From the battle of the White Mountain until the time of Maria Theresa “Austria” was embodied in the territorial aristocracy, the “Magnates.” These, even when German, thought of themselves as Austrians, not as Germans, just as the Prussian nobility regarded themselves solely as Prussians.

[…]

The tie which made the bureaucracy German was more
than culture. The bureaucrats, often by origin, always by employment, were town-dwellers; and the towns of the Habsburg Monarchy were all German in character.

[…]

In so far as the old Empire had a national character,
that character had been German. The Holy Roman Empire was universally, though loosely, called “German Emperor” and the Empire had been known since the fifteenth century as the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Between 1806 and 1815 no Germany existed; after 1815 the German subjects of the Habsburgs were once more members of the “German Confederation”. Moreover the culture of the Empire was everywhere German, apart fiom the cosmopolitan culture of the court; the universities were German; it was plausible to argue later that German was the Austrian “language of state. Even representative government, the classical liberal demand, would strengthen the German position. The Germans, though only one-third of the population, paid two-thirds of the direct taxes; and an individual German paid in taxes twice as much as a Czech or an Italian, nearly five times as much as a Pole, and seven times as much as a Croat or Serb.

Therefore a restricted suffrage based on taxation, which was the universal liberal programme, would return a parliament predominantly German in character. The Germans found themselves in a dilemma only when nationalism developed into the demand for a unitary national state. Some took the extreme course of advocating the overthrow of the Habsburgs in favour of national Germany; others the course, equally extreme, of proposing the merging into national Germany of all the Habsburg lands, including even Hungary. Most, however, supposed that Germany would follow the boundary of the German Confederation; this included the Czechs and Slovenes, but not Hungary. This hope was defeated in 1866: the Germans of Austria were excluded from national Germany, and the conflict of loyalties began. But now the Germans could not turn so easily against the Habsburgs. The other nationalities of the Empire had begun to voice their claims, claims directed against the Germans rather than against the Emperor. The break-up of the Habsburg Empire might bring to the Germans something they desired — inclusion in the German national state. It might instead bring something much worse — the loss of their privileged position in lands that were traditionally theirs. Thus the Germans remained to the end torn in their loyalties: certainly not unreservedly “Austrian” like the great landowners and the great capitalists, but at the same time hoping that the Empire might still be transformed into an Empire “for them.”

[…]

The old title had been a sham, felt as such even by the Habsburgs; the German Confederation, created in 1815, was a closer union than the decayed Empire, and Austria, as the presiding Power, had still the principal say in German affairs. Austria did not renounce the headship of Germany in 1815. Rather the reverse: she asserted her German character and, though she accepted Prussia as a second Great Power in Germany, this partnership was one in which Prussia did the work and Austria eiyoyed the distinction.

[…]

The Vienna liberals assumed that the Empire was a German state which would play the chief part in a new liberal Germany, and they pressed as strongly for elections to the German national assembly in Frankfurt as for a Constituent Assembly in Austria. The abortive constitution of April 25, which mentioned the provinces only as agencies for bringing local grievances to the attention of the central government, was a crude expression of this German view. It was revealed even more strikingly in the proposals of the “central committee of the Estates,” which sat from April 10 to April preparing for the Estates General which never met. The Committee was attended only by members from the Diets of the German provinces — high bureaucrats of Vienna and enlightened German nobles who had led the agitation against Mettemich; in short, the most moderate and experienced Austrian Germans of their day. These Germans recognised the claims of the other historic nations: Hungary, they proposed, should be muted to the Empire only by a personal tie; Lombardy-Venetia should be surrendered to an Italian national state; Galicia should be given autonomy, in anticipation of the restoration of Poland. The remainder of the Empire was to be a unitary German state, a member of the German Confederation, and held together by German culture. This programme assumed the twilight of the dynasty, and the Germans of the official class retreated from it as the dynasty recovered. Still, they had revealed an outlook common to all the Germans of the Monarchy; were the dynasty to fail, they would go with Greater German nationalism, not into a federation with the non-historic peoples. The only difference between the various groups of Germans was in timing: the radicals turned against the dynasty in 1848, the bulk of the Germans believed that there was still some life in it.

[…]

The more moderate Germans wished to belong to Germany, but wished also to preserve the Imperial unity which made it grander to be an Austrian than to be a Bavarian or a Saxon : they wished, that is, to have in Austria all the advantages of being German and yet to have in Germany all the advantages of being Austrian.

[…]

The Habsburgs seemed to have become the standard-bearers of Greater Germany. This won oYer not merely the Austrian Germans, but many Germans from outside Austria as well. Between 1861 and 1866 moderate liberals in Germany occasionally looked to Prussia, as likely to achieve some modest practical result; the former radicals of 1848 became supporters of Austria.

[…]

The Austrian Germans were absorbed in the German prob-
lem; they had neither time nor understanding for the problem of the Austrian Empire.

[…]

Old Austria committed
a brainless suicide; and Bismarck went to war in order to
impose on Austria a decision which her rulers were incapable of making for themselves. The Austrian ministers feared victory as much as defeat; for victory would compel Austria to become without reserve the leading German power and so cause the eclipse of the cosmopolitan Austrian nobility.

[…]

By the Peace
of Prague (August 23, 1866), Austria lost Venetia and was
excluded from Germany; she remained a Great Power.

The Austria which emerged from the war of 18 66 was created by Bismarck as much as the Austria which emerged from the Napoleonic Wars was created by Metternich: created, that is, not in its internal balance, but in its significance as a Great Power. Metternich’s Austria was a European necessity; Bismarck’s Austria was a German necessity, or rather a Prussian necessity. It was the essential barrier against Greater Germany, against the Pan-German programme which would swamp the Prussian Junkers. And since many others were opposed to Greater Germany, Austria was welcome for them.

[…]

The Germans still hoped that the Habsburg Empire would further German cultural and economic supremacy in south-eastern Europe, or at any rate within the Empire. This did not fit so easily into Bismarck’s system. Bismarck could not allow the revival of German Austrian strength and therewith a renewed danger of the “Empire of seventy millions”; on the other hand, he could not allow the Austrian Empire to lose its German character and so become eligible as the ally of France or even of Russia. In fact, Bismarck wished to preserve Austria as she was in 1866 — defeated, but still German; and the suspended animation of Austrian politics in the age of Dualism was largely the result of German needs.

[…]

Napoleon III and Francis Joseph met at Salzburg; Beust attempted to mediate between Italy and France over the question of Rome; and Austria was paraded as a German state, for the sake of feeling in Germany. This was a barren pretence. Beust sought German support against Prussia, but the object dearest to German liberalism was the unification of Germany, and that was being achieved by Prussia. The Germans in Austria were ready to take part in the pretence, since it guaranteed their privileged position in Austria; and, besides, they wished to restore the connection with Germany which had been broken in 1866.

[…]

The Linz programme sought to return to the heroic age of
German supremacy. Like the radicals of 1848, these radicals had no difficulty in recognising the claims of the “ historic nations.’ Galicia was to become a separate unit under Polish rule; Dalmatia to be handed over to its tiny Italian minority; with a parody of the October revolution, the Linz radicals would agree to Personal Union with Hungary, or even add Galicia and Dalmatia to Hungary, in return for Magyar support of the Germans in Austria. Again, as in 1848, the Austrian Germans invoked German backing: Imperial Germany was to intervene and to compel the dynasty to transform Austria into a unitary German state as the price of continuing the Austro-German alliance. Finally, as in 1849 if not in 1848, the Linz radicals were not sincere in their concessions even to Hungary: once Austria had become a German state, Germany and the German Austrians would support the dynasty in overthrowing the compromise with Hungary. Thus, stripped of its radical phrases, the Linz programme proposed to return to the system of Schmerling, with Bismarck as its guarantor instead of its enemy. When the Linz radicals called on Germany for support, they confessed that the German Austrians had neither the strength nor the cultural superiority to maintain their monopoly in Austria. They assumed, too, that the German Austrians had voluntarily renounced the German national state, that Germany would come to their assistance at the first call, and that therefore they should be rewarded for not destroying the Habsburg Empire. These assumptions were false. The German Austrians had not renounced Germany; they had been deliberately excluded from Germany by Bismarck, and he had no intention of seconding their ambitions, still less of destroying Austria-Hungary. Bismarck feared Greater Germany, which would be beyond the power of the Prussian Junkers to master; and he feared, too, a blatant German hegemony in Europe, which would provoke a European coalition in resistance. The maintenance of an independent Austria-Hungary was the central point of Bismarck’s policy: independent, certainly, of Russia or of France, but independent, too, at any rate in appearance, of Germany. As a consequence, it was in his interest to minimise the German character of Austria-Hungary. After all, he knew that he could always assert German control if it were necessary. The Linz programme invited him to assert German control unnecessarily and was therefore without attraction.

[…]

Francis Joseph did not accept the revolutionary part so
generously offered to him by Renner and Bauer. He was the sole survivor of old Austria, and, despite his resentment at defeat, knew that the events of 1866 could not be undone. Bismarck’s moderation, not Habsburg strength, had allowed the Habsburg Monarchy to survive; and Little German policy was the basis for the limited national freedom which the peoples of the Habsburg Monarchy enjoyed. Their destinies were determined at Berlin, not at Vienna; and once the German rulers gave up their resistance to Greater Germany, the Habsburg Empire became useless to its peoples. Germany would never allow the restoration of the Habsburg Monarchy as a truly independent Power; this would be to renounce the fruits of the victory at Sadova.
A. J. P. Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy 1809-1918

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 18 Oct 2021 15:03

If I am not wrong, Joseph II lived in the 18th Century,some hundred years before the war of 1866 .And what he said was irrelevant as his Austria was mainly inhabited by non Germans .
The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was not Roman, not German, not an Empire .And the power of Joseph II outside ''Austria '' was a fiction .

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

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

Post by George L Gregory » 18 Oct 2021 15:08

ljadw wrote:
18 Oct 2021 15:03
If I am not wrong, Joseph II lived in the 18th Century,some hundred years before the war of 1866 .And what he said was irrelevant as his Austria was mainly inhabited by non Germans .
The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was not Roman, not German, not an Empire .And the power of Joseph II outside ''Austria '' was a fiction .
Your strawman arguments are weak. You’re engaging in circular reasoning, despite the fact you have never proven that Austria was mainly inhabited by non-Germans. Just because you keep repeating it does not mean that it’s suddenly going to become true. And, again, you ignore the main things and reply about moot things.

I copied and pasted the above information for readers to read, not for you to start clutching at straws.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15639
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 18 Oct 2021 16:31

1 Austria did not exist between 1867 and 1918 .
2 Between 1867 and 1918 existed Cisleithania which was mainly inhabited by non -''Germans ''.Its population was in 1910 28 million of whom 10 million who had '' German'' as domestic''language '', but most of them had not German but a German dialect as domestic language and as Taylor said : this does not mean that they were loyal to a particular ethnic or national group .
70 % of the inhabitants of Cisleithania used German as Lingua Franca, but this does not mean that they considered themselves as German : half of them ,at least, did not consider themselves as German .
Til he was 6 Tony Curtis spoke only Hungarian : this did not mean that he considered himself as Hungarian .
What you refuse to admit is that Austria-Hungary was a supranational state ( especially Austria ) and that most of its inhabitants (especially those of Cisleithania ) did not consider themselves as belonging to a particular ethnic or national group ( most Hungarians were an exception ) but only as loyal subjects of the Emperor and that those who considered themselves as members of a particular ethnic or national group ,did not want to leave A-H for an Anschluss with an other country ,they were satisfied with being subjects of the Emperor .
And, what you also refuse to admit ,or don't know is that there was not ONE but three revolts in 1848 :
1 a social revolt by the main part of the European population because there was a general famine in Europe,for which the ruling classes were wrongly hold responsible .
2 a liberal revolt by intellectuals (professors, journalists,students and other such people )who despised the overwhelming majority of the European population,but wanted to eliminate the ruling classes (monarchy,aristocracy, church ) and to take their place.
3 a nationalist revolt ( in a few countries ) by members of group 2 . The Frankfurt Congress had a majority of members of group two .The main German population was NOT represented at Frankfurt,because they were too poor,because they could not read : 9 % of the Prussian recruits could not read or write ,which means that the illiteracy in the older groups was much higher .
The average inhabitant of a small village in Styria,etc,did not leave his village ,he could not afford it, did not read a newspaper,he was very satisfied if he could survive and if a few of his children would become adult : he was not interested in blahblah about Gross /Kleindeutschland .
He would vote as would tell him the church,or the local von, or he would not vote ,as it lasted til 1907 ! before all adult men had the right to vote . Women were excluded and did not complain .

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

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

Post by George L Gregory » 18 Oct 2021 17:45

1) Please clarify what you mean by Austria did not exist between 1867 and 1918. The historian whom you cited and referenced stated that it did and was known as Old Austria.

2) “Cisleithania” was not an official term.

3) German was the most widely spoken language in Austria-Hungary. 23% spoke German and 20% spoke Hungarian.

“The largest group within Cisleithania were Austrian Germans (including Yiddish-speaking Jews), who made up around a third of the population. German-speakers and Czechs made up a majority of the population. Almost 60% of Cisleithania's population was ethnically Slavic.”

Your original statement was that there is no proof Austrians were Germans and yet I cited the same author you used and he said that they were so what do you have to say about that?

You ignored the main points I cited and repeated the same things you have already posted.

Since it’s fun to run rings around you then I shall quote more of Taylor from his other books in my future posts, please bear with me. :D

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

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

Post by George L Gregory » 18 Oct 2021 17:57

Austria did not cease to be a part of the German question when she was excluded from the political system of Germany in 1866. The survival of the Habsburg monarchy; the support of the Habsburg monarchy in war; the relations of the German and Austrian republics in 1918; and, especially, the efforts both to promote and to resist the Anschluss which was achieved in 1938; all played a vital part in German political development.

[…]

The Germans of the Habsburg supported Schmerling's attempt to establish Habsburg authority over Germany; and they were the defeated party of 1866, excluded from the Reich for the first time in a thousand years. Yet they now opposed any attempt to undo the verdict of Sadowa. Francis Joseph gave Austria 'a constitution and the Austrian German liberals predominance in that constitution as a necessary part of his compact with the Magyars. A Habsburg victory over Prussia would not merely undo Hungarian independence; it would also end liberalism in Austria and would put the Habsburg monarchy in the hands of the Slav peoples. Rather than accept equality with the Slavs and run the risk of counting as a minority in Austria — which they were — the German Austrians, too, became guarantors of Bismarck's work. The few Habsburg politicians who Still hoped for revenge were hamstrung. They could renew the struggle with Prussia only if they were prepared to struggle against the Magyars and German Austrians as well and to seek the alliance of the Slav peoples. But the anti-Prussians in Austria were aristocrats, great landowners of clerical conservative views. It was inconceivable that they could become the radical leaders of land-hungry peasants. Therefore, despite dynastic distaste, the Habsburg monarchy was doomed to remain the satellite of Prussia-Germany. The alternative was agrarian and social revolution.
A. J. P. Taylor, The course of German history, a survey of the development of Germany since 1815

Return to “Propaganda, Culture & Architecture”