Talk:Anschluss/Archive 1

message: : " ...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)
thread_title:  Rhineland Retaken? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peer Review and some amendments and additions 

message: "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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Greater German

message: 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  to this page. — LinkBot 10:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Anschluss|Link suggestions]] 

message: Would this article basically suite the purposes for a redirect of German annexation of Austria? Oberiko 00:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but isn't it rather unlikely that anyone would type German annexation of Austria? Martg76 10:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Annexation?

message: 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)
replies: text: The wording is given in the caption of the image.--Fenice 21:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for Information to be Included in Article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: pov

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Pov issues?

message: 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)
thread_title:  some edits to opening paragraphs proposed 

message: Maybe it's worth mentioning that the term now has a wider meaning and it is used in geopolitics to describe a state's policy of anexation of another state, on the pretext of cultural, historic, ethnic, historic or lingvistic unity. --Radufan 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geopolitical meaning

message: The translations connection or political union for Anschluss are not adequate. Both words describe a connection between equal entities, while Anschluss (from the word anschließen) means connecting a smaller subsystem to a greater system of the same kind. There is always a Anschluss of on thing to another, never the Anschluss of two things (with each other)! The Nazis most likely used this more technically term with a certain purpose. I suggest link-up as translation. 
(It's not what the Anschluss was about, but what meaning the word has in German.)
--Abe Lincoln 12:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation in first sentence 

message: The infobox should be changed from History of German to History of Austria. Although this event effected both countries it is somehow woeful to see one of the sadest, but most important recent chapters of Austrian history being listed under History of Germany. Perhaps you might consider a change of that. The protest against the Anschluss by Mexico at the League of Nations by foreign minister Eduardo Hay, as the only country to do so, should also be mentioned. --El bes (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Austria 

message: He hates jews  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:58C0:4890:B44F:8C59:756C:15DB (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  hiitler