Talk:Engelbert Dollfuss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organisations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion.

This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject.

He initiated a programme of economic reform ...doesn't everybody "initiate a programme of economic reform" even a new pope? This entry is unusually opaque. Must be something there under the surface. Wetman 03:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"In May 1934 Dollfuss proclaimed a new constitution modelled on that of Fascist Italy."

Was it? As far as I know, it was simply based on Catholic socio-political teaching, if anything.

"In order to install the so-called austro-fascist dictatorship,"

So-called by whom? No historian or political scientist that I know of, certainly.Vincent-D 23:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To the present day, Dollfuß has always been a highly controversial figure. The German term Austrofaschismus gets 8,730 Google hits, and Austro-Fascism 392, so there are people who use that term, and it can be found in practically all history books dealing with the interwar years in Austria. However, there is no reason for Martg76 to, as he/she calls it, "revert vandalism" if someone just calls Dollfuß Bundeskanzler, which he was. You shouldn't do that. <KF> 18:04, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

can be found in practically all history books dealing with the interwar years in Austria. I have a degree, I'm working on my Master's, and no it can't. It's not quite a Wikipedia invention, but it's nowhere near that universal. At scholar Google it gets 19 hits[1] (Regular Google is going to be more enamored of sloppy ahistorical renamings so is not reliable here) "Engelbert Dollfuss" gets 111 hits at Scholar Google.[2] "Engelbert Dollfuss" "Fascist" however does get 61 hits[3]. So I'm not objecting to it being termed a kind of Fascism. (Although I think it might be an exaggeration) I'm largely just being pedantic. Austro-Fascism is a description of his brand, but it's not the most common one or universally accepted in historical circles. In general I've seen him described as authoritarian or "like Italian-Fascism", without any effort to give his brand its own name. As he seems not to have ruled for very long not giving his version a unique name seems justified.--T. Anthony 14:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm coming at this from an Anglo-centric (Which may be no bad thing, in terms of objectivity.) point of view here, but people seem to be throwing around the F-word without any real substantiation. The fact that the German variant of the term throws up so many more results on Google - and the English term so few - is perhaps telling.

I'd actually argue that the Dolfuss regime probably has hardly any basis for being called 'Fascist' - certainly no more than Portugal under Salazar, for instance, and all the articles regarding that subject make it clear that while having Fascist overtones, the exact extent to which the regime can be called 'Fascist' is arguable - and therefore the unqualified use of the term in the article should be removed. To be honest, the whole range of articles dealing with this area need to be made more neutral. Political Catholicism, for instance, in the Austro-Fascist article proper is described as "Clerical Fascism" - a term loaded with bias and plenty of room for it being disputed, IMHO. -Vincent-D 03:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, irrespective of whether the term Fascism is warrented, the term Austrofascism is commonly used for the regime and thus necessarily needs to be included in the articles dealing with that topic here. Even the AEIOU Encyclopedia has an entry for it ([4]). That site is maintained by the Austrian Ministry of Education, which has hardly been a stronghold of left-wing politics during the past years. Furthermore, the Austrofascism article even now has a section on critcism of the term, which you are more than welcome to improve. With respect to Clerical Fascism, that section of the article was simply a translation of the German Wikipedia. You are of course invited to clarify things as you see fit. The criticism section there is not from the German Wikipedia. Martg76 05:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe "vandalism" is too strong language, let's calm down. However, I didn't really see a reason for the edit by User:PMelvilleAustin, who only removed information which (as you state) is certainly relevant for Dollfuss' historical role. Certainly the nature of state and government changed significantly under his and Kurt Schuschnigg's rule. Just to give a rather symbolical example, under the Austro-fascist constitution, Austria was no longer a Republic, but its official name was Bundesstaat Österreich. Martg76 18:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I said some time ago that this article needs a major rewrite. So let's hope someone will do that and include all the necessary and relevant information. It may be difficult for those not familiar with Austrian/European history to understand how someone can be a "fascist" and at the same time oppose the Nazis. Also, as you say, the abolition of parliamentary democracy and the constitution of 1934 need to be mentioned in some detail. <KF> 23:40, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I edited out the note because we don't have such notes in the Chancellor of Germany box for Hitler or Papen who were a dictator and authoritarian respectively - i was merely bringing it in line with the German Chancellor's infobox. PMA 09:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know, and I do hope that this is no reason for an edit war. All the best, <KF> 11:50, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I hope so - and that Marty can understand. PMA 18:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality / Rumours

The following line in the article appears very much to be an anti-OeVP bit of information : It is rumoured that his portrait still hangs in the ÖVP headquarters. This is highly unlikely, as it would be of questionable legality under the current legal conditions in Austria. It seems to be, for the most part, included as an insult against the OeVP by implying that they are fascist. I shall refrain from removing it yet, if any one wants to disagree and debate this. If no one does, I'll remove the line in a few days, keeping it here on the talk page so that any one can discuss it and add it back later if they want. Beobach972 16:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Without a good source, it can be looked on as POV slander against the Austrian People's Party. You definitely have a reason to remove it. Picaroon9288 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, in case you forgot, I'll do it. Picaroon9288 00:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Beobach972 21:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That´s no rumour, that´s a fact. Wich I should know because I´m from Austria and there are enough pictures in newspapers to prove it. Try this for a start http://no-racism.net/article/890/

Tomaschek Markus, Austria, 11 July 2006

Well, I have never seen any newspaper pictures showing the portrait of Dollfuß hanging in the ÖVP headquarter. On the other hand the legal conditions in Austria do not forbid it neither and I think, without having any prove at hand, it is actually hanging in the party's parliamentary office. Gugganij 19:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)