Talk:History of Austria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-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.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Added Pictures

Sorry about the number of edits, but it is saver to add pics and save immediately... sorry. Themanwithoutapast 23:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding them, they look great. With the pictures, I think, the article has the potential to obtain featured status. A couple of things that probably should be done:
  • There should be more information on prehistory (maybe with a picture of the Venus of Willendorf or another famous artifact) and more information on the first millenium.
  • The period 1714-1815 is much too long and should be put cut, the current content put into a subarticle.
  • Maybe a picture of one of those really aggressive polical ads from the first or early second republic.
  • Another picture for the "recent past" section.

Martg76 22:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

as the person who wrote the history from 1278 to 1814, I will agree that perhaps the stuff on 1714-1815 is too long, but that a much more serious problem is the terrible 1814-1918 section (which I've never gotten around to working on). I'm not sure if the 20th century stuff needs to be worked on. john k 23:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- So much could be added here! The sequestering of Austria to the Habsburgs, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, Maria Theresa, Joseph and enlightened absolutism, Congress of Vienna, Metternich, Franz Josef, Anschluss to Nazi Germany, Jörg Haider, ...

Especially the parts about the First Republic and Austrofacism remain very inaccurate if you do not mention the self-paralyzation of Parliament in 1933, the bloody February uprising of 1934 and the aborted Nazi putsch of the same year, which cost Dollfuss' life. wg 23:11 Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

This text is no more than a stub. It would/will take months to write a decent encyclopaedia entry on the history of Austria. For the time being, http://www.geocities.com/historyofaustria/history.html looks like a good place to go to get more information.

By the way, during the Second World War Austria did not "side with the Axis Powers" because in those years Austria did not exist (see "Anschluss"). --KF 07:07 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

=As for "The War of Bavarian Succession was ended on May 13, 1979 when Russian and French mediators at the Congress of Teschen negotiated an end to the war. In the agreement Austria receive a part of its territory that was taken from them (the Inn District).", I must have been ill that week because I have no recollection of such a bizarre deterioration of Central European diplomatic relations. Harry Potter

This article is as stubby as the outside link is huge. I could write a good deal from memory, and it's been two years since I took that class. But I must go to sleep now... Smack 06:41 18 May 2003 (UTC)
There is really no point in adding isolated pieces of information to this stub: They only confuse the innocent reader. As Koyaanis Qatsi already pointed out last summer, "so much could be added here". However, the first step will have to be to give a sort of survey. Even the meaning of the name Austria has changed considerably over the centuries (see, for example, Hyncice, Czech Republic, Gregor Mendel's birthplace). --KF 07:01 18 May 2003 (UTC)
Possibly skipping over this first step, I've tried to outline the history of Austria up through the 17th century. One problem is that the meaning of the name Austria was rather varied even in one particular century. In the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, for instance, the name might refer to any of 1) The "House of Austria" (aka, House of Habsburg), whose two branches ruled Spain (until 1700) and the Holy Roman Empire; 2) Austria proper, the small Danubian province divided into "Upper" and "Lower" parts, with capitals at Linz and Vienna respectively; 3) The whole of the Habsburg hereditary lands, roughly modern Austria (but larger), with Tyrol and the Vörlande occasionally called "Further Austria", and Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Istria, Trieste, Gorizia, Gradisca called "Inner Austria", in addition to "Upper" and "Lower" Austria; 4) The lands specifically ruled by the Austrian branch of the Habsburg family, including not only the Hereditary lands, but also Hungary and Bohemia (and, after 1772, Galicia). The whole thing is rather a mess. john 07:23 18 May 2003 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was referring to. Let's not forget that for most of the time we're talking about here the province of Salzburg did not belong to the Habsburg lands. Nice to see this article grow. --KF 08:00 18 May 2003 (UTC)

Exactly what information on this page could possibly be derived from the World Fact Book and the State Department website? john 03:57 20 May 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted changes because I've never seen a hyphen used with reference to the Christian Socialist Party. Capitalization should be enough to indicate that this is the name of a specific political party. john 07:31, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, my additions seem to be getting more and more detailed as I go forward - the most recent one is far too focused on foreign policy, though. If anyone knows anything about Austrian domestic policy in the Napoleonic period, that'd balance it out a lot. john 04:10, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] No specific entry on annexation?

Howdy. Is there no specific entry on Wikipedia dealing with the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany? Oberiko 00:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look at Anschluss. john k 02:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] whats this

I removed the following code from the top of the "The Nineteenth Century (1815-1918)" section:

{{details|Austrian Empire]], Austria-Hungary and [[Congress of Vienna}}

I don't know what this line was supposed to do, but whatever it was, it wasn't doing it properly, and was mostly just showing the code. Herostratus 20:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Version by Ulritz

At the end of World War II, Austria was overrun by Allied Forces.

On March 28, 1945, American troops set foot on Austrian soil, with the Red Army crossing the eastern border two days later, capturing Vienna by April 13. US and British forces occupied the western and southern parts of the country, securing Austria from complete Soviet domination, marking an end to Nazi rule.

[edit] Comments on version by Ulritz

This version looks as if it were written by someone who supported nazism and is kind of disappointed that the Allies and Red Army freed the Austrian people from Nazi ruled imposed on them since 1938. No offence. Rex 13:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Version by Rex, or version before Ulritz' edits

At the end of World War II, Austria was liberated from Nazi rule by Allied Forces. - On March 30, 1945 Red Army forces entered the country, and on April 13 freed Vienna. US and British forces freed the western and southern parts of the country.

[edit] Comments on version by Rex

History is subjected to opinions from contemporary times. Today Austrians (or at least I hope they do) feel that they were liberated from the Nazis and German domination. Wikipedia should reflect contemporary opinions. Rex 13:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Classic revisionism- the poor Austrians, how could they vote for inclusion into the Reich (headed by a compatriot), having greeted their "oppresors" with cheers? See the discussion about the word "liberation" on words to avoid, which sparked the protests of Poles and Ukrainains, who were far more liberated than the Austrians, who, besides having a disproportionate role in the spread of Nazism, fought the liberators, housed concentration camps, etc. -indisputable facts which find no refelction in RG's whitewashed, lopsided version. Of course there are many more facts, but these alone prove how indefensible RG's POV is. Ulritz 13:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you should be very careful with claiming Poles housed the concentration camps, you see history will prove you wrong and show that it were the people behind the banner on your user page who housed them on the lands they invaded without a declaration of war.

Apart from that, there is a clear line between revisionism and modern views. Judging from what I've seen now, you think the findings of Copernicus were revisionism as well? Rex 14:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparing Austrian-run camps with Austro-German camps in Poland won't get you anywhere, nor will drifting off topic. Ulritz 14:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't evade questions Ulritz. You are the one that propagates revisionism, not I. By changing the wording you try to make it seem as if the nazis were the true liberators and the Allies were the bad guys. Rex 14:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry I even bothered, though it just proves how helpless you are in the face of solid arguments by turning this into a 'cops and robbers' scenario. Ulritz 14:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Do I need to repeat myself Ulritz? YOU are the one editing this article and yet I have to defend the previous version?! Who do you think you are? You refer to a non existant discussion all the time in your edit (or rather revert) summaries and when a discussion finally develops you refuse to take part. Are you sure you want to be a wikipedian?! Rex 14:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Austria was no more "liberated" than Germany was, and the idea that it is is a species of Austrian revisionism designed to free Austria from being guilty of Nazi atrocities. Certainly, a majority in Austria before March 1938 probably didn't support the Nazis, but the same is true of Germany before 1933. There was a large Austrian Nazi community, and Austria was certainly not a conquered territory - it was part of the Reich. Saying that Austria was "liberated" is to buy into a myth that the Austrians created to avoid having to deal with their Nazi past - which they did successfully enough that they decided to elect a known war criminal as president in a fit of pique, something which would be unheard of in Germany itself. Beyond that, you guys seem to be completely talking past each other. john k 01:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well put John k. BTW the current formulation is much better, but the whole WWII section needs expansion - I will work on that if I get the chance as this is an area I've done research in. Dmhaglund 10:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source of Information

This website has information on the history of Austria that might be useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.232.66.25 (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Citations?

Notably absent on this page. I'm going to flag it and will periodically try to add some, primarily for the 20th Century period with which I am relatively familiar. Dmhaglund 10:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep I think everyone loves tags,
but maybe it isn't necassary to reference everything on this page, I think that one should reference the "Main Pages" instead.
--Lumber Jack 23:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:1statetreaty.jpg

Image:1statetreaty.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)