Talk:Anschluss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anschluss is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Anschluss appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 21, 2005.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is a former featured article removal candidate. Please see the archive to see why its featured status was upheld.

Anschluss has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Germany Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Germany To-do:

[edit] Rhineland Retaken?

" ...the Rhineland was retaken ..."

Why does the fourth paragraph of the introduction perpetuate the American college myth that the Rhineland was 'retaken' (in 1936)? This implies that it had been away from Germany by the Versailles Treaty? The Rhineland was remilitiarized, not 'retaken'. Norvo 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review and some amendments and additions

I have just amended the article and restructued it a bid (subsections for the Anschluss). Especially some additions in the second part of the article. Could not find enough material for the reactions section (french, US, some newspapers?). In addition I've added a couple of photos.

hope my changes were improvements. Themanwithoutapast 17:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restructuring effort discussion

I made larger changes to the first part of the article, the events of the Anschluss. My sources are both the german wikipedia article as well as various internet articles (in german) on the topic.

While I sympathize with the second part of the article ("understanding the word"), it appears to me that the last paragraph suggests all Austrians during 1945 and today are not accepting Austria's Nazi history. More or less autocritical pressure from writers such as Bernhard and occasional criticism from outside Austria are distinct phenomenon which have nonetheless conspired to force less-than-damning Austrian self-conceptions to contend with other, radically divergent views. -> this seems rather cryptical) I do not dispute that the "Entnazifizierung" wasn't as effective as in Germany after WW2, however I think that the paragraph - as it stands now - suggests that only a handful of political dissenters like Bernhard did not (and still do not) think Austria was merely a victim of Hitler's Nazis. At least more than 50 % do not accept the victim theory as of today (however this figure was certainly lower up to the 1980s) and see Austria as guilty as Germany for Nationalsocialists crimes subsequent to 1938. Maybe the original editor of this paragraph could consider to edit it to give it a more NPOV? Themanwithoutapast 01:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

"More or less autocritical pressure from writers such as Bernhard and occasional criticism from outside Austria are distinct phenomenon which have nonetheless conspired to force less-than-damning Austrian self-conceptions to contend with other, radically divergent views." These are my words. I'm not in possession of sufficient data to attribute contemporary views to demographics, nor am I sure that such an approach would be justifiable or, at least, sufficient. Conversely one might also point out that Austria was overrepresented in the Nazi party, the SS, and death camp staff by increasing degrees vis-a-vis population in the Reich, but that's not going to get us to the heart of the matter.

My concern is not so much with what people are willing to say to pollsters or with these bare facts, although I'm not dismissive of them. I'm interested perhaps above all by what democracy means in Austria and the expressions of responsibility for the events stretching from the Burgerkrieg to the end of the Third Reich by democratic institutions (political associations, legislation, even literature). I have tried to argue that much of the weight on this hangs on the Anschluss. I don't think the issue is strictly an issue of majority or minority opinions (although it is also one of polls, particularly the elections of the 1990s, stretching from the Volksbestimmung on the EU-Eintritt to the collapse of the FPÖ-ÖVP coalition are extremely important to evaluating the situation and what Austrians could not fully express in these elections); I think it is one of marginalization of a key instrument for Austrian self-diagnosis. The Anschluss names a fracture within Austrian identity that is a site of continuing violence in identifying Austria and individual Austrians with extremely concrete violence before and after the Anschluss and a distinct violence surviving the Reich that has been increasingly difficult to deny since the 1980s. I thought it appropriate to expand on this by drawing attention to returns to Heldenplatz both literal and figural. It is not a matter of righteous Austrians on one side and their evil countrymen on the other; it is a matter of an extremely self-conflicted national identity with which every Austrian grapples. However encouraging recent events are by way of diagnosis, I also wanted to indicate that there are further thresholds that have been approached but not entirely crossed, particularly when it comes to legal acknowledgment, indicating how much can already be discerned to lie in wait.

On the other hand, let's not forget the old joke about Austria — Austria has perpetrated two great lies against history: that Beethoven was Austrian and that Hitler was German. Austria may be less inclined to claim that it was Hitler's victim, but has it gone so far as to accept or even fully acknowledge its responsibility for Hitler? What does one make of the 84 or so names of the Austrian Righteous held up before Hitler's birth home? I'm not sure, which is also to say that I'm not reassured. Buffyg 02:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greater German

"Greater German" should be seen in the historic context: In the 19th century, there was a dilemma about how to unify Germany. On one side, the großdeutsche Lösung (Greater German solution) was proposed: Großdeutschland should include all German states, including Prussia and Austria. On the other side, there was an existing Northern German union (I don't remember its name just now) dominated by Prussia, and the easiest solution to unify Germany seemed to extend this union to all of Germany. However, Austria did not want to be part of a Prussia-dominated union, and somehow, one arrived at a kleindeutsche Lösung (Smaller German solution): to unify all German states except Austria (and Switzerland, which didn't take part anyway). The Third Reich alluded to this 19th-century dillema by reusing the word Großdeutschland, probably to express a "relief" that finally, all Germany was unified.

(The großdeutsche Lösung should be distinguished from pangermanism, a movement that tried to subject even countries where only a German minority lived under German hegemony, adopted later by Hitler.)

I also think that Austria and Hungary were together long before already, so there would have been a problem of what to do with Hungary in a Großdeutschland. In the 19th century (perhaps about 1867??), there was a large reorganisation of Austria-Hungary, which led to the double monarchy and gave Hungary some more freedom from Austria. Therefore, the author of the article may have got the impression that Austria-Hungary did only exist from then on, while that state was quite a bit older. -- dnjansen, 1 July 2004

Hungary was one of the subject lands of the Austrian Empire until it granted the Magyars "equal" status in 1867, so Austria-Hungary technically did not exist before then. One element left out of this article is that the German lands unified in 1871 had large numbers of ethnic minorities, especially Poles, and many Germans were not enthusiastic about this. Austria-Hungary was less than 25% German, so the incorporation of so many more minorities within a German empire was, like Hungary's status was from the Austro-Hungarian side, a fundamental objection of Germany to a Grossdeutschland. After WWI, Germany was much more ethnically homogenous, and German Austria was a separate state, so these ethnic obstacles to Anschluss were no longer present. --205.134.0.38 16:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would be useful to note the 'Kleindeutsche' solution was discussed at the Frankfurt Parliament in 1848-49 and that many of the delegates saw it as the only viable solution. Norvo 03:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical and Literary Legacy of the 1938 Anschluss

The section "Understanding the Word: Historical and Literary Legacy of the 1938 Anschluss" is very interesting and relevant to this article, but it seems a bit too POV and essay like at the moment. I'm going to try to reword it a bit, when I get a chance, but if anyone feels like doing so I would invite them to have a try. Peregrine981 04:34, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Could you please point me to any policies indicating that British spelling is deprecated for the wikipedia? Otherwise, I really don't see there being any point in changing British spellings to American. Buffyg 16:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Either is acceptable, we're just supposed to keep the article consistent. Who has changed british to american? Peregrine981 04:00, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Anschluss article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Anschluss}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dollfuß, not Dollfuss

The German orthography reform of 1996 did not abolish the "ß" totally. (The Swiss, however, did -- in 1938.) That man is still spelled "Dollfuß", because the ß/ss is preceded by a long vowel. --Langec 20:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While your explantion of ß/ss is correct, Dollfuß is spelled with ß because it is a name. Names are not affected by the ortography reform. --Peter

If that's the case, then what should one make of the spelling Seyss-Inquart? Buffyg 01:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess the problem with ß/ss is that English keyboards do not have an ß, therefore it's problematic for other people than Germans, Austrians or Swiss to edit articles with names with ßs occuring more often. By the way Buffyg, the chapter "understanding the word" might need some sub-structuring captions (just a suggestions to improve readability) Themanwithoutapast 01:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

ß = ß - wikipedia knows html entities Guidod 11:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Even we as Germans don't really knew exactly whats about the orthography reform and it's not clear how it will look like at the end (some monthes ago they wanted to remove some of it's improvements). Names are in common not effected but there're some conditions where they can be adapted. In normal these are only none-personal names (streets, villages etc.). --Saperaud 22:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Annexation?

Would this article basically suite the purposes for a redirect of German annexation of Austria? Oberiko 00:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't it rather unlikely that anyone would type German annexation of Austria? Martg76 10:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Redirect from Anschluss? It's really not a common term I've you leave the US and for me as a german it's like "Kindergarten". It's simply not correct and even in German we say "Anschluss Österreichs an das Deutsche Reich" (no not third Reich) and historical it's called "Wiedervereinigung Österreichs mit dem Deutschen Reich". By the way things like Gleichschaltung are really horrible and these terms shouldn't be used in english if you want to be correct. Anschluss and annexation are the same in this specific meaning and it's not a good historical view to relate words with it's origin and give them something magical effect (for none native german speakers) where there is no magic. Best example "Blitzkrieg". There have been several lightning wars f. e. the Six-Day War, Gulf War or even the first phase of World War I. They have nothing to do with the Word War 2 in general but if you look to Blitzkrieg there's only stuff about WWII. So there's the Question aren't there any situations somebody can call Anschluss? Whats with the other german areas in the Sudetenland or the polish germans in former east prussia? They were "angeschlossen" too. By now Anschluss is also often used (in German) for the reunification of BRD and DDR, because nothing of the DDR really left. --Saperaud 22:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "Anschluss" simple means annexation and may be used in many other contexts where a smaller country is incorporated into a larger one. But if we just say "Anschluss" don't we usually mean this specific one? In any case, "Wiedervereinigung" ("re"-unificiation) is historically incorrect with respect to 1938 and, at least to me, has a connonation of a certain POV that I think we wouldn't want here. Martg76 08:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

In fact, "Anschluss" simply means "connection", as in, for example, a "connecting flight" ("Anschlussflug"), a phone line/connector ("Telefonanschluss") etc. It doesn't literally mean "annexation" at all, using it in that meaning is more of a euphemism . The article should really be moved to a name like "Anschluss Österreichs". --K. Sperling (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anschluss versus Anschluß

I changed the following passage:

Note: Until the German spelling reform of 1996, Anschluss was written Anschluß. (See also the article on ß.)

That's not true. (It is true for German spelling, of course.) Is the German spelling pre-1996 worth mentioning in this article? I would favour removing the entire paragraph. Arbor 12:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry? Are you referring to the occasional practise of transliterating "ß" into "ss" in English-language publications? Buffyg 13:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I checked three English dictionaries from 1983 to 1991, and all of include the word Anschluss. None of them mentions an alternative spelling using the letter ß. (That would be the correct German spelling at that time, of course.) However, I'm not a native English speaker, so I may put too much faith into dictionaries. Also, it is quite possible that there are English dictionaries around that prescribe Anschluß, in which case both spellings would have been allowed pre 1996, and the quoted passage remains highly misleading. Arbor 14:21, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

So some publishers in English don't use "special" characters and transliterate them instead. The practise may be inconsistent; you may find someone using the work Übermensch without transliterating it to Uebermensch on the one hand, but transliterating Anschluß to Anschluss instead. I'm not aware of what, if any, formal guidelines are said to govern this practise or whether this is a matter of variable technical limitations. I suspect it is reasonable to mention the formally prescribed German spelling before and after the orthography reform and to note further that transliteration in English-language publication preceded the orthography reform. As this tends to be a technical limitation (same reason one finds Greek characters transliterated), I suspect that no answers are to be found in style guides like MLA or Chicago, but I'll check in any case. I'll also see if I can track down any information about foreign-language orthography for English-language publishers, as this would seem to be of greater interest (and probably ought to checked against relevant wiki guidelines). Out of curiosity, could you name the dictionaries and their editions? Buffyg 15:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The old (pre-1996) dictionaries are Fowler's II and Collin's. I also have the 1998 COD, which is irrelevant (but uses anschluss). But the burden of proof really rests with the side that claims that anschluss was written with ß (in English, mind you) before 1996. You and I may think that that ought to have been the correct spelling, but that's not really interesting. The point is that anschluss is a proper English word that appears in dictionaries, just like facade. (Actually, facade is a bad example since the spelling with a c-virgule is actually allowed in some English dictionaries as well.) On the other hand, Übermensch is not in my COD, so the German spelling (and transliterations thereof) may be relevant. Arbor 15:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I checked the Chicago Manual of Style, 14th edition (1993). According to it:

German is almost never set in the old Fraktur type nowadays. For setting in roman type, one special character (ß) is needed, plus the umlauted vowels:

ÄäÖöÜü

It is acceptable to set ß as ss and umlauted capitals as Ae, Oe, and Ue, but lowercase umlauted letters should not be so set. 9.43 (pp. 328-329)

Buffyg 08:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Buffy, at the danger of repeating myself: the issue at hand is not about transliterating a German word. Anschluss is an English word that appears in dictionaries, and has done so for decades. With -ss. It's spelling in German isn't relevant, just like the French spelling of Büro isn't relevant for German Wikipedia. Arbor 09:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating a previous debate, orthography and spelling aren't quite the same thing. Anschluss and Anschluß were equivalent typographic representations of the same spelling. When it appears in an English dictionary as "Anschluss," that's in part a matter of typesetting conventions, particularly because not all dictionaries are going to carry sections on translation or use characters that aren't available to the typesetting tools of most English-language writers (it's not often that you would find a typewriter that would offer the preferred spelling). In any case, when "Anscluss" appears in a dictionary, I would take it that retention of the initial capitalization indicates it is being used a proper noun and is therefore being transliterated rather than fully "loaned" — one does not otherwise keep capitalization for German "loaners". The quick glance at the dictionary I saw indicates a specific reference the 1938 Anschluss and gives one general sense of the German word underlying this use. I would therefore take the current English usage to be inseparable from usage as both a general substantive and a proper noun. Buffyg 10:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

With respect to capitalisation, my (1998) COD is quite precise about that:

anschluss ... n a unification, esp. (Anschluss) the annexation of Austria by Germany in 1938. [German from anschliessen 'join']

So according to COD the capitalised usage is different from the noncapitalised one. On the other hand, Webster's II (1984) and Collins (1991) contain only the capitalised form. Regarding typographical conventions, my COD is pretty well-equipped with non-English letters, and its conventions don't seem to be a matter of typographical convenience. For example, the entry under angstrom suggests ångström as an alternative spelling, and facade appears with façade. But still no mention of Anschluß, not even as an alternative. Until further evidence is produced I think it is safe to say that the spelling with -ss is correct even before 1996. You and I may think it's weird, or misguided, or a sad display of typographical poverty or parochialism. But I don't think that's for us to decide. The Wikipedia article shouldn't claim that Anschluß was the correct spelling (or even just a valid alternative) before 1996 until somebody actually digs out some evidence in favour for it. Arbor 11:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Note that the cases that you've cited remain consistent with the guideline given from the University of Chicago guide. Note also that the German etymology of "Anschluss" in an English language dictionary gives the spelling of anschließen as "anschliessen," which is consistent with my contention about an accepted typographical variance. In English-language scholarship, people are going to find both the previous German spelling and typographic variations allowable in English-language orthography. The key here is not to look at other examples and extrapolate too far but to see what the declared orthographic conventions of the dictionary in which they appear are. A good dictionary will include such a thing; absent a critical reading of these you are making inferences where you can substantiate your means of disambiguation. People should therefore be told to expect both spellings in English language publications before 1996 and should be given information about Buffyg 14:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. If you can find a formulation that is even closer to that goal than mine then by all means change it. (All provided that you actually have an English language publication that uses the spelling with ß. I have checked my own sorry collection of English books about that area and found none. I'll browse around in the local bookstore tomorrow.) Arbor 20:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

To clear up this confusion: after the spelling reform Anschluss is the correct spelling. Before the spelling reform Anschluß was the correct spelling. Anschließen however is still written with a ß. The rule is that after a short vowel the ß is now a ss. This is true for Austria and Germany. Switzerland has no ß.--Fenice 1 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)

Fen, but you are answering the wrong question. Our discussion is whether Anschluß was ever the correct English spelling. Every English dictionary I have checked has Anschluss, and some have anschluss. None has Anschluß, no matter when it's from. Neither have I found Anschluß in any English history text. (And I have checked around a dozen or so.) That is why I think the note on the ß-spelling is misleading and should be removed (though it has much improved since we started this discussion. "Germancruft", to coin a term. That doesn't mean I don't find such things interesting. Actually, I wrote the passage on the new rules in the English WP article about the German spelling reform, including mention of the word Anschluss and its English and German spellings. (Check it out: Sounds and letters.) So I'm not opposed to including this information. What I am opposed to is the (still unverified) claim that the spelling with ß has ever been correct English. Arbor 2 July 2005 08:46 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, why is so much time being spent debating the inclusion of a German character in the English spelling of the word? Buffy, if you want to make this point on the German language wiki, you could do so easily. I don't understand why you insist on including a non-english character and a non-english spelling in an english language document. Arbor is correct, Buffy, you are not. And no, I'm not going to sign anything, save your recriminations.

[edit] Please use WP:NPOV

I removed the last sentence of the section Overall assessment because was horrendously biased. (Biased, by the way, to a view I hold myself. I do not disagree with the conclusion, which belongs to history texts or essays, or maybe even other Encylopedias with a less strict policy on value judgements. But it does not belong to Wikipedia.)

I would favour removing the entire section, because Wikipedia really isn't a good forum for giving overall assessments in the first place, and certainly not about subjects that are overly controversial. Here is the paragraph in question, with the sentence I just removed stricken out:

As of 2005, the subject of the Anschluss and especially the historical events leading to the Anschluss remain highly controversial in Austria. In order to assess the burden of Austria's twentieth century history, it is important to view the Anschluss, the role many Austrians took in the Third Reich and its crimes, and how Austria subsequently dealt with these issues in context with all surrounding circumstances. In general it should be concluded that Austria is equally liable with Germany for the crimes of Nazi Germany while Germany's military invasion that constituted the Anschluss cannot serve as a defense for this culpability.

I have no qualms about the first sentence. The second sentence, on the other hand, is just windbaggy, mildly condescending triviality and contains no statement of fact. If on the other hand it is viewed as a statement of an opinion it needs to be attributed to somebody else. The third sentence was downright soapboxy.

So this leaves, in my opinion, the first sentence as the only candidate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. As it stands, it belongs to the introduction, not to a conclusion, which in its conception is conceptually misguided. (Unless, of course, it transforms into a well-referenced overview of the current status of Anschluss assessment in Austria and abroad. Such a section would be wonderful.)

Had this article not already passed several iterations of peer review, I would remove it boldly. But with the current status it seemed wiser to invite debate here. Arbor 11:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The drafting history of the whole article was a little bid difficult - I think this "overall assessment" paragraph emerged somehow in between and was not challenged and I have to admit that I myself rewrote it, altough I had great doubts too. So I think we should remove it alltogether. Themanwithoutapast 13:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article has problems with bias in other areas too, e.g. (POV words and phrases in italics):

The Anschluss can be misunderstood as simply a military annexation of an unwilling Austria, but this lends itself to confusion with other German military occupations of European countries. It also tends to conceal the culpability of many Austrians in Nazi crimes, most of all the Shoah, by perpetuating the myth of Austria as the first victim of Hitler's expansionism. Despite the subversion of Austrian political process by Hitler's sympathizers and associates in Austria, Austrian acceptance of direct government by Hitler's Berlin is a very different phenomenon from the administration of other collaborationist countries.

I previously recast most of that area into NPOV, but the original author reverted it back to the biased approach. I'm glad others are also watching so that this article does not serve as a vehicle for propaganda instead of upholding the Wikipedia standard for NPOV. --StanZegel 21:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I restored it not because I thought it was perfect as is but because I thought it should not disappear without a trace, arrested by the NPOV police. I regard my failure as commenting that it needed discussion and then failing promptly to open such a discussion. I'm still mulling over how not to say this polemically, but I think it is also overstated to call propaganda and therefore contraband an attempt to identify elements of propaganda in a particularly prevalent account of dubious credibility. It is intellectually indefensible to allow this to pass with critique. Rather than objecting to NPOV wording and asking for a revision of the argument, you also chose initially to make a radical edit without taking it up here. Thank you for bringing this back here, but let's be a little more balanced in how we seek to restore balance. Buffyg 22:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid Stan is quite right in his objection. The best thing, Buffyg, would be to find somebody to whom you can attribute the above viewpoint, which makes the article automatically POV. The next best thing would be to introduce weasel terms and thus neutralise the section. Ironically, that would produce a paragraph with the exact opposite meaning to what you intend:

The Anschluss can viewed as the military annexation of an unwilling Austria, similar to other German military occupations of European countries. Some argue that this absolves many Austrians of Nazi crimes like the Shoah, and that Austria was the first victim of Hitler's expansionism. Others argue that because of the subversion of Austrian political process by Hitler's sympathizers and associates in Austria, Austrian acceptance of direct government by Hitler's Berlin is a very different phenomenon from the administration of other collaborationist countries.

As you can see, now it becomes a (neutral but) unexciting statement of two opposing viewpoints, which cannot be attributed to anybody and hence serves as a bad introduction to the subject. I would much prefer if you dug out some references, so that this paragraph is stronger. Arbor 06:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, I began by saying that I don't think the word is perfect and that it needed to be worked out here rather than simply excised with an NPOV comment on the edit. And, actually, I do have a similar remark from Raul Hilberg's mouth later in the article, but I don't believe that this entirely addresses POV/NPOV. My point is not to say that the Anschluss cannot be viewed as the military annexation of Austria but that to view it as "simply" that would be to "misunderstand" its essence, which would not in any case provide anything like absolution but does have the effect of changing the subject (hence my wording "tends to conceal"). In any case, to make such a claim without remarking on its limited analytic value and obvious propaganda value would be to set aside a number of basic facts presented elsewhere in the article, and to simply reiterate an argument without quotation or attribution and in any case without pointing out what immediately contradicts it is POV of a subtle sort. Certainly you can always resort to attributing remarks to "some" and "others," but this is below the Gallup level of presenting opinions and does little to inform the reader or grasp essential truths. For these reasons I don't think think your weasel proposal achieves neutral, although it is so blandly and equivocally stated that one drops one's guard and is therefore less likely to call it out. Buffyg 07:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

StanZegel, I do not think I completely understand the specific POV problems you are citing.

It also tends to conceal the culpability of many Austrians in Nazi crimes

As an Austrian, I unfortunately have to tell you many Austrians willingly participated in Nazi crimes, a known fact that has been proven many times. Where's the POV in that? BTW, why did you italicize "crimes"? Where's the POV here?

most of all the Shoah,

We could of course add World War II and other things.

by perpetuating the myth of Austria as the first victim of Hitler's expansionism.

This is the only one where you may have a point. What "by portrying Austria as the first victim"? Martg76 21:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Martyg, the "myth that..." is the most blatant of the POV passages, and the one that caused me to raise the issue. Generally my (overstated) feeling is that anything that has an adjective needs closer review for POV problems, which is why I pointed out the some of the adjacent language too. You raise an excellent point, that of the relative importance of WW2 vs the Shoah, and any article that elevates the smaller over the larger certainly reflects POV.

As for "crimes" I marked it because I think that is a loaded word ("I do what is necessary in the circumstances, you do the expedient thing, what he does is criminal") that is unnecessary and vague: like history, ex post facto laws are written by the victors, and the losers are declared "criminals" instead of merely the losers. Was Stalin's treatment of captured enemy soldiers a crime? If so, against what specific statute or treaty? Stalin's USSR was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War because he did not care about reciprocal treatment of POWs. His orders to the soviet solders were simple: fight to the death, and any Soyuz soldier who allowed himself to be captured instead of killed had therefore disobeyed orders and Stalin was not concerned about the subsequent treatment of that soldier. That lack of concern of reciprocity allowed him to treat captured German soldiers as he did. So "crimes" is not a simple subject, and using the term here is not necessary (except to reinforce POV) and thus I called attention to it too.

I do think this article has gotten way off track, way beyond the Anschulss, dealing as it attempts to do, with "guilt" for political activities. If it were NPOV and dealing with such extraneous matters, it would also explain how, 20 years before, the victors had dismembered Habsburg Austria, ripping away the lands of the Bohemian crown and the breadbasket of Hungary. "Der Rest ist Österreich" might have been in the minds of some who wished a restoration of the status quo ante bellum, and looked up the Donau at the economic recovery Germany had experienced after repossessing the Ruhrgebiet and reasserting control of its own destiny. History may always be written by the victors, and is always done so to emphasize the justice of victor's actions and the evil of the losers', but in a NPOV article we should be more concerned with stating the facts (after all, no one is wholly bad and acts for what he considers to be good reasons --although we may disagree with those reasons), and helping the reader to understand the rationale of both sides of any issue is important. In any event, much of the material in this article is irrelevant to the subject of it and should, I believe, be removed to a more suitable place and recast into a dispassionate and impartial exposition of the subject. --StanZegel 13:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have read the article now, and am quite surprised how biased it is, especially given its current featured status. The passage pointed to by Stan is maybe the worst paragraph, but there are similar passages throughout the articles 4th section (Legacy). Look, Martg and Buffy, I share these viewpoints. But they don't belong here. Unless they are much, much better sourced. So either this article is heavily POV, or it is poorly sourced. I would encourage you warmly to give this piece a very careful second look. Err on the side of caution. Here are some of the things I noted:

Repeatedly, this article makes conclusions for the reader: look for To judge from...was.... How about After World War II, many Austrians sought comfort in the myth of Austria as the Nazis' first victim. Sought comfort? Myth? That's not NPOV.

And cite your sources: For decades, the victim theory established in the Austrian mind remained largely undisputed. Well, I disputed it. So what does the sentence mean? How do I validate it?

Some parts are very difficult to read if you're not German. Take Vergangenheitsbewältigung. A Wikipedia-introduced neologism that appears without further explanation and links to a very dense article. Who is supposed to understand this? (Ah, the term is finally translated, several sections after it is introduced.) The section on Haider and FPÖ can only be understood if you either follow lots of links, or know the issue beforehand. Also, note that the German meaning of liberal is the opposite of the American meaning,

Several years of unhappy junior membership in a coalition with the SPÖ had brought discredit to the party's liberal element.

An American would understand the liberal elements as the left wing of FPÖ. "Hey, they were in a coalition with SPÖ. Hm... SPÖ must be a right-wing party, then."

Other parts are just nonsense and poor English even to my ears: the popular underpinning of Nazi politics as a total art form. Or Moreover Austrofascism was less grand in its appeal than the choice between Stalin and Hitler to which many European intellectuals of the time believed themselves reduced by the end of the decade. I have a hard time figuring out what that means. Luckily, the article (again) makes the conclusion for me, without further reference: Austria had effectively no alternative view of its historical mission when the choice was upon it.

I will poke about a bit myself, but it's probably better if most of the cleaning comes from the main authors (after all, you know what you are talking about). I am confident that we can get the article fixed in no time. Arbor 13:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Information to be Included in Article

I originally came to this article in search of the text of the question Schuschnigg was submitting to the electorate at the plebicite. Not the nature or jist of the question, but the actual wording. I hope that someone who knows more about this subject will be able to add the text to this article as it undergoes revision and augmentation. --StanZegel 03:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The wording is given in the caption of the image.--Fenice 21:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, the image shows the 10 April ballot, after the Anschluss. What I'm hoping can be added the article is what the pre-Anschluss 13 March ballot would have said.--StanZegel 05:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] pov

Several years of unhappy junior membership in a coalition with the SPÖ had brought discredit to the party's liberal elements.
has to be cut for pov reasons.--Fenice 16:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's objectionable about this characterisation? The liberal element of the party did lack credibility after the coalition, which provided the occasion for Haider's ascent. I can, of course, provide a source here. Buffyg 09:01, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Due to formal reasons it seems to be impossible to get this on the farc list. This is a copy of the farc request:

[edit] Anschluss

nominated for removal on June 26

Reason: The article has several problems:

It has pov-issues, which a featured article should not have. Therefore this version cannot be considered stable, which is another requirement for featured standard. The article reads like the author is trying to prove a point, namely calling the Anschluß annexation - which is something no Austrian publishing house would print. This problem is apparent in the intro and lateron there is a complete section called "the word" which the author probably made up (no sources). Also, the author carefully avoids any mention of the official standpoint of the austrian government (accepting moral responsibility), calls the Anschluss 'invasion' and so on.

I believe you missed some qualifiers in there somewhere around "namely calling the Anschluß annexation". I'll answer further on moral responsibility when I can write at greater length. Buffyg 11:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The qualifiers are here: ```The Anschluss can be misunderstood as simply a military annexation of an unwilling Austria, but this lends itself to confusion with other German military occupations of European countries. It also tends to conceal the culpability of many Austrians in Nazi crimes, most of all the Shoah, by perpetuating the myth of Austria as the first victim of Hitler's expansionism. Despite the subversion of Austrian political process by Hitler's sympathizers and associates in Austria, Austrian acceptance of direct government by Hitler's Berlin is a very different phenomenon from the administration of other collaborationist countries.Borisblue 6 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)

I think she means qualifiers like this: annexation in the sense of "political union", in the intro. Then why not translate it by union in the first place. It gives the reader the impression that you have to get in the word annexation and because it is an encyclopedic article you have to then qualify it to make up for it. There is more detailed discussion of this on WP:FARC.--Fenice 6 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)

It is 50 percent off topic. The first half does deal with the Anschluss and needs some work, lacks essential info (see f. i. talk, request by StanZegel). The second half is a bad article on current austrian politics. (Maybe splitting is a solution).

Disagree strongly with this remark. You can look at the enduring controversy about the Yasukuni Shrine in Japan and East Asia to find evidence that the past doesn't go anywhere and can remain an extremely potent ongoing political issue. It is an definite issue when you had a figure in Government like Haider making remarks about the SS. Chronological dispersion is not a sufficient criteria for assessing relevance. Buffyg 11:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Yasukuni Shrine is not featured, the SS is not the Anschluss.--Fenice 11:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You seemed to miss the point of what was clearly an analogy. You argue that half of the article is not topical; my point is that you need to justify this, as the second half of the article isn't strictly about more recent Austrian politics so much as the continuing importance of the Anschluss in various elements of Austrian life and identity. Buffyg 17:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know my answer sounded curt and quick, but I mean what I say. The complaint I made is about this article being featured. So you would have to compare it against other featured articles. The argument that some sections are too large/small is a frequent criteria for not featuring an article: see Pope John Paul II: it didn't get featured because the section on his death and funeral were too long.

Following your argument that the Anschluß plays into current Austrian politics, you would also have to add the second half of this article to Anti-Semitism, Adolf Hitler, History of Austria, Sigmund Freud, Waffen-SS, Death camp, Survivor syndrome etc. Historical events are always somehow relevant to the present. (Looking again at my exagerated list: your current history account would actually fit better in the article death camp because the main FPÖ problem is not the Anschluss but the denial of the existence of death camps. Two weeks ago, a law had to be changed in Austria to get a death-camp-denier out of an important political position (Lex Kampl)).

The space I would give the victim theory in a good historical article on the Anschluß is maximum one screen + limit contents to uncontroversial official positions and well-documented historical facts.--Fenice 18:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was rather curt, Fenice. Whereas you have been quick, I have taken far too long to reply. I had thought to attend to a couple of other articles and come back to this one, not realising that the FARC was still alive for this article. I nevertheless hope that you and others will find your way back here so that we can get around to addressing a number of valid complaints you have raised, first by agreeing on what's essential about them, and second by addressing their implication for the article.

I take the comparison to John Paul II to be a rather strained analogy: it does seem unreasonable not to discuss in greater depth the life of the one remembered, just as it may make sense to devote as much attention to the ongoing relevance of an event as to its first visitation. Of course I will grant you this: a topic so defined is expansive, so it is reasonable to focus on what can be substantiated by existing scholarship and is of demonstrable relevance. In any case I fail to see how understand how the validity of an analogy is established by way of reference to featured article status. Let's make some more pointed qualifications. In the case of Yasukuni Shrine, we are talking about a memorial. In particular, a memorial in which a number of war crimes are interred. Visits to the shrine by Japanese political leaders do have a role in current Japanese politics and Japan's relations to a number of other Asian countries. Perhaps more to the point, insofar as Yasukuni Shrine is also represents a point of contention in arguing about Japanese history that has a current political dimension, one can discuss more recent events in Japan with reference to it; it has a continuing relevance. What I think you are right to point out, if I've understood you correctly, is that one should be careful in offering it up as though it were some master term for understanding contemporary Austria, and the article fails to do this.

For evidence of contemporary contention, you can follow the link to a BBC article by the historian Robert Knight, a member of the Historikerkommission, citing use of the victim theory to turn aside reparations issues. The role of the Anschluss and its interpretation under the Moscow Declaration, mentioned here, can be argued to have relevance when the issue of formal obligation is still open. I do not object that one cannot understand Austria today without understanding the contribution of its Jewish citizens, the violence against them that did not simply culminate in their liquidation, the prominent role of Austrians throughout that violence, the circumscription of responsibility that persists to this day, or the itineraries taken in the Austrian case to what acknowledgements have been made that have shifted those circumscriptions. That this issue is open is what Raul Hilberg speaks to in a personally agitated tone altogether different from his scholarly tone. One can find a more measured response from an Austrian historian:

In Österreich hat man viel später mit der Vergangenheitsbewältigung begonnen als z. B. in Deutschland... Unsere Generation hat in der Schule kaum etwas über die NS-Zeit erfarhren. Das war ein Tabu-Thema. Der Geschichtsunterricht schloss mit dem Ersten Weltkrieg oder der Zeit danach. Späteres wurde nur gestreift und die 30er Jahre wurden nicht einmal erwähnt. Meine Generation — die erste Generation, die nach der NS-Zeit zur Welt kam — hat praktisch gar nichts über die jüngere Geschichte erfahren. Prim. Dr. Elisabeth Pitterman-Höcker, p. 11, Vorreiter der Vernichtung?: Eugenik, Rassenhygiene, und Euthanasie in der österreichischen Diskussion vor 1938

So, no, it's not just about the death camps, however important to recent Austrian political history they may be. It's also about the dispossession of those of the more than 200,000 Austrian Jews who were able to leave Austria, whether under Eichmann's extortionate emigration scheme or by other forfeitures or abandonments. These people weren't simply to have died or been banished: they were never to have existed — that was the essence of the Shoah. How one might remember them, remember what happened to them and was intended to happen to their memory, that so many Austrians came to think of themselves as Germans and in so doing could not be reconciled with their neighbours and then were so deeply complicit in not just their ruin but the fantasy of their utter erasure: death camps, Freud, a joining up with the Germans, what it means to be Austrian now: I take your point that none of these are fully dissociable. But doesn't "Anschluss" get right to the heart of this joining-dissociation and its institutionalisation? A heart that's been spoken to fairly well already but demonstrably so much in the last twenty, lest you think we are indulging in research, trying to make a point, or are pushing the envelope of relevance. It's not just a matter of FPÖ supporters denying the death camps, it's Dollfuss on the wall of the ÖVP's parliamentary club, so many books about the Heldenkanzler, and Schnussnig lamenting in his Requiem that if he had ruled over a totalitarian rather than an authoritarian state, he would have ridden out so much crisis and kept Austria out of the Third Reich. It's a lot to unpack, and I'll happily acknowledge that this might be done better.

It's about how this is taught in school not just now but in the time since the War and how the Anschluss has figured in recent Austrian politics. I think, however, we can improve the article further and that additional information ought to be added. I find the following from a recent speech by Stuart Eizenstat, which I've quoted in part because it's already in English:

No one can precisely date when Austrians began to face the full picture of your wartime involvement, but there clearly were at least two precipitating events which occasioned a rethinking, combined with politically courageous actions by several of your leaders. Former SS-Obersturmbannführer Walter Reder returned to Austria in 1985 to an official reception, following his lengthy imprisonment in Italy for Reder’s responsibility in the killing of 1,830 victims, mostly older people, women, and children in the Italian village of Marzabotta, near Bologna. This caused an uproar in Italy, in your own country Austria, and internationally, leading to a first major debate in public about your role in World War II. Further momentum came from the revelations in 1986-87 about the role of former UN Secretary General and Austrian President Kurt Waldheim in the German Army, and an international panel was appointed by your Government in 1988 to review Mr. Waldheim’s participation in the war.

Then several courageous Austrian political and religious leaders acted out of conscience and conviction. In 1987, Austrian Cardinal Franz König gave a speech implying that as Christians and Austrians his fellow citizens shared responsibility for crimes against Jews. Chancellor Franz Vranitzky made dramatic statements at the 50th anniversary of the Anschluss in 1988 and again in the Austrian Parliament, this Parliament, in 1991, that “many” – and I am quoting him – “Austrians welcomed the so-called Anschluss, supported the National Socialist Regime,” and “participated in the machinery of suppression and persecution of the Third Reich, some of them at the forefront,” and thus, in his words, bore “moral co-responsibility.” In 1994, Federal President the late Dr. Thomas Klestil bowed his head to the victims and declared to the Israeli Knesset that Austria “mustn’t be spared from encountering the historical truth, the whole truth” and that, in his words, “too often one has spoken only about how Austria has been the first nation to lose its liberty and independence to National Socialism and way too seldom we have also spoken about the fact that some of the worst henchmen … had been in fact Austrian.”

Austria has moved commendably beyond these stirring words to institutionalize the telling of truth in a soul-searching way.

On October 1, 1998, at Chancellor Schüssel’s initiative, the Austrian Government created a Historical Commission chaired by Professor Dr. Clemens Jabloner, which produced a comprehensive report on all aspects of Nazi-era confiscation in Austria.

I think, however, that these do argue that the institutionalised understandings of the Anschluss have shifted in the most recent time period cited (Waldheim to Historikerkommission), although certainly for more and perhaps other reasons than those given. I think we can incorporate these changes into the article and provide additional citations to delimit the validity of contentions that are subject to debate. You can talk about the Schüssel issue as a blunder — and you are right that it should not be contextualised in a partial manner — but there is case for saying that the reception of the Anschluss has changed substantially from the mid-1980s to the present and that the issue is still with us. I do not, however, see an article that needs to be split in two because recent Austrian history and very recent Austrian history ought to be dissociatated when the Anschluss has been a politicised issue in very recent memory. Buffyg 7 July 2005 01:32 (UTC)

No one can precisely date when Austrians began to face the full picture of your wartime involvement Austrians began to face the full picture of wartime involvement in 1938. Your account is quite one-sided and pc towards the ÖVP. You say that the perception changed since the mid 1980, that was 20 years ago and most people on Wikipedia haven't experienced the era before that. Also this quote: death camps, Freud, a joining up with the Germans, what it means to be Austrian now - you have a completely distorted view of the circumstances. The average reaction of an Austrian would probably be ridiculing, I'll resist the temptation. Most middle class people alive in our times were brought up by television series ranging from Brady bunch to The O.C., drinking Coke and eating pizza like the rest of the (middle class) world from Detroit to Sao Paolo. People like Waldheim and Haider are just funny antiquated figures to most people in Austria, to be blunt. There may have been an official victim theory, even under SPÖ-regime, but that was certainly not the theory of the man in the street, if he had any at all. The official anouncement by Vranitzky (both these qoutes from your text above, Vranitzky and Klestil, should be in the text) was an awaking of a completely different sort to a large part of the population, and that is that the government has just learned what we have known all along. Yes, you are right, officially history lessons stopped at the Anschluss. The material that teachers were officially provided with to illustrate the Anschluss was: a video of the happenings at Heldenplatz. Do you need an extensive history lesson in addition to that? There was of course room for the discussion of the Nazi-time in other school-subjects (German-lessons usually include reading Anne Frank, even biology: race-theory). Of course, school is not the only resource: there was a famous 4 part television series, Holocaust, about the second world war, was shown at the end of the seventies. Much of Austria had only two tv-channels at the time so everyone saw it. That is what it means to be Austrian now. Party-politics is only a small part, and they have a large fluctuation.--Fenice 7 July 2005 09:43 (UTC)

Fenice, I'm rather disappointed that you've chosen to reply again without offering any verifiable sources. We can argue back and forth as much as we like, but as long as you want to argue on the basis of what you consider to be the views of an Austrian, we're not really making any progress here. If you're going to argue against the use of the Wiener Zeitung and insist on more scholarly sources, perhaps you might reduce the back-and-forth about POV by citing scholarly sources for your views rather than arguing about what you think would be credited as a view by any particular group of Austrians. "Do you need an extensive history lesson in addition to that?" Yes, such would be Elisabeth Pitterman-Höcker's argument in the citation I made. Buffyg 17:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The article has references and footnotes but the references lack quality. Most of the text seems to be based on one article in the Wiener Zeitung, a viennese daily. For an article on history, historians should be quoted, not journalists. A section called 'The appeal of Nazism to Austrians' absolutely needs sources, and in this case I mean inline notes. --Fenice 06:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We can, of course, do this, although one need not agree that journalism is off limits, particularly where it provides primary source material. Buffyg 11:08, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

After my NPOVing and getting rid of a few weasel terms, I actually think that the POV issues are gone. I've decided to Be Bold and remove the tag. Borisblue 8 July 2005 01:20 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I'll leave the tag on for the moment, to see if Fenice has other POV issues. Borisblue 8 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)
- I've sourced the claim that Anschluss can mean "annexation". If Fenice brings up no more objections I'll remove the tag. Borisblue 8 July 2005 11:17 (UTC)

I think the NPOV tag shouldbe reapplied, it is still biased as if u read down towards teh bottom it tries to blaim the Austrian people for teh Anschluss, like someone saying a woman "was aksing for it" when they are raped because they were wearing tight clothes

You need to make specific arguments, indicating exactly where you think there is a POV problem, rather than offering a tortured analogy. Buffyg 14:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I've given you my sources Fenice

Fenice, reverting without using the user page? And after I have cited both encarta and britannica? tut tutBorisblue 8 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)

I do not see where you could see any reverts by me in this article, not even when I take known bugs into consideration??--Fenice 8 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

[edit] the lead

OK, this comes from a twice merged talk, so it's messyBorisblue 8 July 2005 17:10 (UTC) Where have I reverted anything?--Fenice 8 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

Well, then I seriously wonder why that is not in the text. Again, it is possible on wikipedia to make your nazi-accomodating point. There is nothing I can/will do about it. I think it is a shame, you do not think so. So what else is new. You are uncooperative to an astonishing degree: you're complaining on my talk-page that I have never asked for the solution just mentioned (mentioning annexation and clearly saying it is not one). That is what I have been typing into the keyboard at least ten times this week. So you can ask yourself again, why it is that the article is unimprovable. I am just not into this kind of stupidity, I know many people here are. Can you imagine how this would be going on? The two of us would take 500 weeks to improve the article, reverter themanwithoutapast not considered.--Fenice 8 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Although minor POV points still exist here and there, I am certain a reader going through the article will understand that most Austrians supported the Anschluss as a unification. Listen, I don't want to make an enemy out of you. Read my edit history on the article and you will see that all my edits shifted the article toward your point of view. I have no POV to push; I just want to save what is in my opinion a very good article from being de-FA'd. And please don't make references to "cheap asian products", this may be interpreted as an ethnic slur. Borisblue 8 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the 'asian' comment. Be careful about stuff like this, we asians are very proud of our manufacturing industry :) Borisblue 8 July 2005 16:15 (UTC)
- Fenice, reverting a statement backed by both britannica and encarta will not go down well in your FARC...Borisblue 8 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
  - for your info, you've reverted back to your edit ignoring the word "annexation" completely ( the one user:themanwithoutapast originally reverted. I've sourced my claims for annexation to be included Fenice; But I actually kind of like your idea :"You have also not offered a viable solution, that is mentioning annexation and demonstrating it wasn't one - which would be the obvious Wikipedia way to solve a dispute"

so why didn't you do this? We both agree that a) significant amounts of people and sources call it annexation. and b)The Austrians supported the Anschluss, so it wasn't a real invasion, so what precisely are we arguing about?? Borisblue 8 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

- - - check my latest version Borisblue 8 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
      - Your edits don't mention the word annexation. You haven't made a single edit between tagging it, and Re-tagging it so when exactly did you put your solution in place? Nevermind, i've already done it, just comment as appopriate.Borisblue 8 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
        
        Maybe we should merge this discussion. Your place or mine? Borisblue 8 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

whoa, merging is messy. Borisblue 8 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)

Your place or mine? I'd say we are even on slurs now. The right place for further discussion is Talk:Anschluss.--Fenice 8 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know that was offensive Borisblue 8 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)

Don't take that too seriously, I would have added a smilie face if it were commonly used on Wikipedia.
My edits don't mention annexation in the lead section because it does not belong there. It can be mentioned lateron in the text. There is a section "the word" now, and what is important is not whether the translation is accurate or not, as you say, it is in use, but that it needs to be made clear that this translation does not portray the historical events accurately.--Fenice 8 July 2005 17:17 (UTC):

really? I use smiley faces all the time :)

anyway, the reason i put it there is that both Encarta and Britannica put it in their lead section. I agree that the translation is inaccurate though. And as you said, the "Word" section is unsourced, so doesn't have credibility. do you think this version is an acceptable compromise? Feel free to alter it- I think we are closer to finding middle ground. Borisblue 8 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)

[edit] the lead and the word

I have reworded the first paragraph in the lead and in "the word", the second paragraph of "the word" needs to be sourced and is acutally quite contradictory. The translation of Vereinigung is uniting or unification. And then there is the socket-association again, the word Anschluss is really used for electrical (physical) connections, but that is not relevant here.--Fenice 8 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)

Got rid of the second paragraph- doesn't add anything to the article really.
- The word seems OK, but are you sure the concept can't be taken as "annexation"? For instance, in britannica they have "Anschluss(German: “union”) Political union of Austria with Germany, which occurred when Adolf Hitler annexed Austria." What I am concerned is, if it is, as you say wrong to describe the Anschluss as an annexation, why do so many sources, and so many authorative sources describe it as precisely that? This was the reason for my "militancy", I thought you were going against the facts. I would appreciate an explanation on why your view disagrees with all these references. Borisblue 8 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)
  - Decided to back down from my position; OK, no annexation in the lead. Changed the title of "the Word" to something more clear, and clarified a few weasel terms (explain which sources define anschluss as annexation). Since I feel that we have resolved the major POV issue I've taken down the NPOV tag. Borisblue 9 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

[edit] Pov issues?

There's still a request to feature this article on the main page. Have all the POV issues been sorted out? →Raul654 16:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'd reckon not. Let me see how things shape up here this week. If there's no indication of imminent progress, I'll withdraw the feature request pending substantial progress. Buffyg 17:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Really? This page has been pretty stable since Fenice and I resolved our dispute. But if you want a nice unvontroversial FA, Raul, may I suggest Carl Friedrich Gauss? :) Borisblue 01:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not convinced Fenice and I have resolved ours. The content we're disputing is what Fenice has occasionally characterised an irretrievable. I think I owe it to my declaration of good faith to see if he replies and heed what he says. Perhaps I'll drop him a line on his talk page if he doesn't check back in shortly. Buffyg 02:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Neither Fenice nor you have edited since I the FARC, this version seems pretty OK to everyone. The flurry of editing going on is about copyright rather than POV issues. I think we should have this on the main page, articles like this reflect well on wikipedia (well, except for the copyright issues below)Borisblue 14:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

Re: the reverting going on, do you guys think there's too much fair use stuff here for an FA? Borisblue 01:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Buffyg 02:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

@Boris -> the pic that user:Hmib added had no copyright tag and no source and was inserted at an unrelated section of the article. user:Hmib inserted the pic again, added a not-working link as a source and a copyright-tag "that the copyright is not determinible" - well, although I still object to such a violation of wikipedia's copyright policy, I tried to resolve this issue by writing user:Hmib on his user page. He has not answered yet. As I already told you on your talk page - I don't want to get involved in the POV-issues discussion, I just wanted to resolve a technical issue. Themanwithoutapast 02:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not exactly what i meant, i checked the other images and most of them are copyrighted fair use. Most of the images here are not really necessary, and besides I would think it would be easy to get some free photos of the Anschluss and people connected to it, this being an event 50 years ago and all (what is the German/Austrian copyright policy?). My personal policy for FAs is that if the copyrighted image isn't absolutely necessary (eg, the pic of someone in a biography) then don't put it in. I would remove about half the stuff here, not just Hmib's picture

Hey, the voting form has no copyright information either! Could someone find out?Borisblue

[edit] some edits to opening paragraphs proposed

The sentence

The events of March 12, 1938, was the first major step in Adolf Hitler's long-desired reunification of Germany with the land that was lost from the former German Empire before it was annexed at the end of WW1 by the neighbouring Allied countries.

is a little unwieldy and confusing, IMO. "land that was lost from ...annexed...by...allied countries" while true of the Saar region, does not characterise austria accurately. there is also a pronoun-referent confusion - does "it was annexed" refers to the "former German Empire" or "the land that was ..."?

How about the following ...

The Union of Austria with Germany was one of the steps taken by Hitler which brought areas he regarded(?) as German territory under the domination of the Third Reich, in violation of terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The Anchluss followed the return of Saar region to Germany and preceded the ceding of Sudetenland, and later, the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland which culminated in the Second World War. Control over such these areas would provide Germany with important resources such as iron and coal in the Saar region and rich agricultural land in Poland.

i propose the following additional text.

With Austria and Sudetenland, Hitler followed similar tactics of encouraging German/Nazi(?) movements in the region and bringing strong(?) diplomatic pressure on the Allied nations to desist from enforcing the terms of the Treaty of Versailles which protected the prevailing national borders.

In the sentence on international response, only the actions of UK is mentioned. i think "UK" needs to be replaced with "allied countries" instead, as french and the US response was more or less the same and they had the same(similar?) obligations as UK under Versailles, League of Nations and international law. perhaps the reactions of italy, czechoslovakia and poland to the event can also be mentioned here. -- Doldrums 02:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I like that article. Well done! At the beginning of the article the Saar region is mentioned; should the Rhineland's return (on March 7, 1936) to Germany from France also be mentioned in the article? QUITTNER 142.150.49.166 17:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

Austrian woman weeping at the Anschluss

Can someone verify that this picture is from the Anschluss. I remember seeing it being described as taken when the Nazis entered the Sudtenland. Roadrunner 03:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This source claims it's from the Sudentenland, not the Anschluss. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:14, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

And the National Archives here caption the photo:

"The tragedy of this Sudeten woman, unable to conceal her misery as she dutifully salutes the triumphant Hitler, is the tragedy of the silent millions who have been `won over' to Hitlerism by the `everlasting use' of ruthless force." Ca. 1938. 208-PP-10A-2. (ww2_78.jpg)

Looks like it's inaccurate to include it in this article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:19, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

And it also sounds, by description, like some National Archives propaganda. This comment on its discussion page:

"This is a butchered photo, I've seen copies of the original many times. It would be best to show the whole photo, as it clearly demonstrates the ambiguous reaction of the Austrian public (the woman to her right is bravely saluting and there is no weeping like the women pictured here)"--Hohns3 20:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] maps

This article really needs a map of Germany before and after Anschluss. (Something like this or this, perhaps.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 13:13, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes for Deletion?

Why does this have a VfD?

Vandalism. Don't worry about - it's not real. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 00:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/s/Talk%7EAnschluss_17b0.html"