Archduke Otto calls Austria the biggest victim of the Nazis: March 2008

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Well it seems that Dr. Habsburg's words were mischosen. If he had said that Austria had lost a great deal of its identity and individual purpose with the Anschluß, I doubt if anyone would have questioned him; it was that word 'victim' was bound to set off a torrent of protest.

Probably - but maybe at 95 you are not longer interested in political correctness but simply want people to discuss the past - maybe for the last time you have an influence on this discussion. There are a lot of TV documentaries in Germany and Austria at the moment, so one might think that the basic facts are being established by now in the public perception.

I did quite a bit of reading about 1938 to 1941 lately and it is interesting to see that there is some similarity in behaviour but a difference in treatment between Austria and France. In a way Austria was as occupied as France, there was resistance in Austria and both countries had a government for a time that collaborated with the Nazis. But France is considered to be a winner of the war while Austria is seen as one of the war criminals. There were French soldiers fighting for Germany (namely from the Alsace-Lorraine area, but some fascist from France as well) but the main impression is that France was a victim while Austria was not.

Is it only due to the fact that Austria is a Germanic country? I'm not feeling that I have been able to establish a real reason for the different treatment. As this is not a political forum, I think we should let this question rest anyway. But IMHO it is okay that the archduke raised the question.

[ysbel]

I think it has to do with the overall positive reaction in Austria to the Anschluß. I know there were people who didn't like it but they did not seem so many.

My German teacher told us a little sarcastically that the people who crowded Vienna's streets in the aftermath of the war claiming to be a victim were the same people who lined those streets when Hitler's motocades came by and yelled, 'Heil Hitler'.

The Nationalsozialistiche Partei ran on a platform of uniting the ethnic German peoples and that was the most pervasive message they sent out. Given that Austria was predominantly ethnic German, I imagine that the Nazis thought they were true allies despite what individuals thought.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by ysbel

The Nationalsozialistiche Partei ran on a platform of uniting the ethnic German peoples and that was the most pervasive message they sent out. Given that Austria was predominantly ethnic German, I imagine that the Nazis thought they were true allies despite what individuals thought.

You're right, that was the pervasivness. But then that has been their and our history, too. Ever since Charlemagne divided his lands and gave them to his three sons, there had been an idea what "Germanic" was. Even though the Germanic countries were never really united, they were part of a socio-historical "realm" and thus at least related. All this ended with WWI - and from then it was only 15 years till the Nazis were successful through bringing the idea back and allowing people to hope that it could be again as it had been before for centuries.

Now we find that the EU refused to translate certain documents into German, they find that English and French should be sufficient. And suddenly people start counting again just how many German speaking citizens are in the EU and how many speak English or French? Which surely has no actual relevance at all as those who speak German as their mother tongue and are involved in politics speak English perfectly - or so they should if they want to work on an European basis.

But it is difficult to back away from such a long history of common cultural development and the history of the first half of the 20. century really doesn't help.

[COUNTESS]

As I am afraid to overstep the rules of this Forum, which does not allow real political discussion, I will just say that Austria was not a victim, but the bride of Hitler. The authentic photos of the cheering and adulating crowds that greeted the Anschluss, belies this victim stuff. Look at the faces of the French as the Germans marched down the Champs Elysee. The tears and long faces. Look at the cheering hoardes in Vienna. Read the expirences of the Autrian Jews at the hands of their Austrian neighbors, who were only to glad to jump on the Hitler bandwagon. Jewish students at the univerity being beaten by their "victim" Austrian collegues. Hitler being greeted by large, jubliant crows in Linz on March 13th, the day after Anschluss. Yes, their were some who objected. But not as a majority. Edward R. Murrow and William Shirer reported on the mayhem in Vienna. Austria was well represented in the SS. You didn't get drafted into the SS. It is time that the rewriting of history, by those who wish to assume this aura of vitimization be backed up by real facts. They cannot. There are a thousand, litterally, books that can back this up. Try "The Unmaking of Hitler" by Eugene Davidson.

[GlitteringTiaras]

It's so unfortunate that my grandfather and grand uncles, who fought in both World Wars (all of them lied to get in), are not around to see this topic. Boy, would they love to say a thing or two and then some... perhaps more than most could handle.

It is time that the rewriting of history, by those who wish to assume this aura of vitimization be backed up by real facts. They cannot. There are a thousand, litterally, books that can back this up. Try "The Unmaking of Hitler" by Eugene Davidson

Mr. Davidson's book is nothing new despite it being "praised" as the golden key of Hitler bios. Everything the author stated in common knowledge and easy to deduce even by those who are not historians or graduate students of history.

[COUNTESS]

Thank you Glittering Tiaras for seeing this as what it is. It makes me sick and angry, to say the least. My family also served and I lost an uncle after the Battle of the Bulge. I am a bit older than you, I think. As a history major, this was also one of my sub-specialties.

[ysbel]

I think what Jo was alluding to was that people from all over the world identified with Hitler's message. I remember quite an impassioned speech from American hero Charles Lindbergh, ardently supporting all the Nazi tenets and encouraging his fellow Americans to do the same. The passion and the beliefs that Hitler inspired were not a solely Germanic development and certain Germans and Austrians as well as citizens from other lands were horrified at the movement.

[GlitteringTiaras]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

I lost an uncle after the Battle of the Bulge. I am a bit older than you, I think. As a history major, this was also one of my sub-specialties.

I'm sorry for your loss, Countess. Two of my grand uncles took part in the Battle of the Bulge and survived. Small world! All seven of them were there on D-Day. Then they spread out, and you know the rest of WWII's history. I inherited my grandfather's medals from my Mom as well as other valuable stuff that I won't reveal, but the coolest thing I have: Two dirty Nazi medals (why he never cleaned them, I have no idea.) My grandfather never told my Nana or my Mom how he obtained them, but I have guesses. I'll leave it at that.

Ysbel, I clearly understand what she meant. Also, in other threads, she spoke of her relatives who were in the German army, and again, I understood what she meant.

I'm sure if my relatives were alive today they would understand Otto's remark's moreso than more than half of us responding in this topic. It's easy to criticise Otto for his comments, but unless you or anyone else lived through the War (either fighting -- Allied or Axis or were a victim dead or saved) it is difficult to understand what happened as well as some people's feelings about it.

The longer one is from a major event in history, the more difficult it is to comprehend as well as thoroughly understand.

Did that make sense?

[COUNTESS]

Yes, that is true and so did Father Coughlin, but there were not hoardes of people lining the streets of New York or Boston or anywhere, cheering the Nazis. But there were in Austria. Yes, there were also those who disapproved, by they were not the majority. There is a great movement underfoot to rewite history, especially WWII. Those who suffered greatly in that war are dying out and soon there will be no "living" people to refute this nonsense. There are thousands of published books, that not only refute, but can show evidence, good solid evidence and pictures of those times. Yet, unsustainable stuff like this is bandied about and soon and in this Hitler was right, "if you repeat a lie long enough, people will believe it". It is greatly upseting to see topics like this trying to gain acceptance into the general milieu. It is not only a lie, it is an insult to anyone who survived that time, especially, those brave men who served in that war, the true victims of the oppression who lost their homes, their families and died in gas chambers and anyone with a historical background. By the way, Lindbergh lost a great deal of popularity for his stance.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Yet, unsustainable stuff like this is bandied about and soon and in this Hitler was right, "if you repeat a lie long enough, people will believe it". It is greatly upseting to see topics like this trying to gain acceptance into the general milieu. It is not only a lie, it is an insult to anyone who survived that time, especially, those brave men who served in that war, the true victims of the oppression who lost their homes, their families and died in gas chambers and anyone with a historical background. By the way, Lindbergh lost a great deal of popularity for his stance.

Countess, I really take exception of your choice of words towards my posts, that you call them "lies" and "insults". I don't think such statements are appropriate when dealing with other memebers of this forum who have a different opinion. All I have written here serves the purpose of seeing both sides instead of believing one possesses the absolute truth. It can be backed up with historical research and though I accept you have a different opinion it is very impolite to accuse me of telling lies or to say that reading what I wrote makes you "sick and angry". It is in addition very unprofessional for someone with a mayor in history to believe there is only one final truth when it comes to assessing the past.

Okay, but I try again to make my position more clear:
Nowhere did I say that it was alright that Austria became a part of Nazi-Germany in 1938. Other than in 1933's Germany, there were no votes which gave the Nazi a kind of democratic basis to claim the country and immediately switch it into a dictatorship. Till 1938 the Nazi-party was illegal in Austria and only Hitler's thread with military intervention made the Austrian government change their politics towards the Nazis. So while Germans had a choice and for reasons made understandible by today's historians did not want to see what was looming at the horizon, it was different with Austria.

You may claim that in case of votes the Austrian would have voted for Germany, but they didn't, so this is no historical fact. What is a fact are the orders the Wehrmacht had when it came to the annexation of Austria: try it in peace but use full power if there is resistance.

We so easily believe because there has been so much published about the Nazis that the people back then were as well informed as we are, but just look at what caused the Iracq war to get support: a pack of lies published by interested parties. And back then, the interested party called NSDAP controlled all the German media. English was not so common, so only some people could get their information from the BBC radio. As Britain was in 1938 still following their appeasement politics, I doubt there was much reporting about how things really were in Germany.

Plus it was only 15 to 20 years after WWI which had changed Europe forever as it was the first war with rather industrial means of killing. After the war, millions had lost their lifes or worse: they came home handicapped or bodily healthy but psychologically brutalized through what they had lived through. Society faced massive problems as the monarchy as stabilizing factor was gone, often the belief in God and a God-given society as well. The people had access to weaponry and suffered from poverty and destruction. That was the climate that few of us can understand today
which fed the aggressive and murderous potential of so many people and made others long so much for peace, security and stability that they accepted that it was only for them and not for those the reigning powers deemed to be underlings.

That I somehow can understand that or accept it as an explaination does not mean I condone that. That my family comes from a militarian background (though noone at the moment is serving at the Bundeswehr) does not mean that I believe it was right what the Wehrmacht did to suppress other countries.

But to say it clearly: Austria had definately no chance against Germany, as Germany was set to get it, no matter what. The moment German soldiers went into Austria, they had orders to shoot any Habsburg-family member they could get hold of - if you're interested, I can supply the documents proving that. The Nazis had already build Flossenbuerg KZ (which is close to the Bohemian border and connected through train tracks to the main train track from Berlin to Prague and Vienna) in order to have a place to hold Czech and Austrian citizens who were against the take-over.

Thus there are many historical facts that point to the country Austria as a victim, even though many Austrians were guilty.

What I argue here is the treatment of a country after the war and there are a lot of reasons why it was convenient for the allies to put the country Austria as well as Germany into the culprit's box while the country France stayed out of it even though the governments of both countries decided to collaborate with Germany after the Wehrmacht had occupied their country.

But of course this is a historical discussion as only very few people still live to tell of these days but if one of them who had actively fought against the German Nazis and worked diplomatically for the country of his birth like archduke Otto publicisies his opinion then at least one should take a closer look at reasons why he might have a point here. To say because the Austrians "all looked so happy" is enough to condemn them all is like saying all voters for Bush wanted the war in Iracq or the happenings at Guantanamo.
Plus: to think that because the archduke is 95 he does not longer know what he is talking about is rubbish. He was there, deeply involved in fighting the Nazis and he is still here, old but not suffering from dementia.

Hope this helps in understanding my position.
BTW - my grandfather was one of the founders of the Social democrats party in Germany, was beaten up in 1933 when he organised support for the Social Democrats in the election and made to pay for his political work from 1933-1939 when he was forced into the army. My father was 18 when he had to do "Arbeitsdienst" and 19 when he became a soldier in 1939. He was handicapped in the war, then prisoner of war and was declared a Non-Nazi as well as his father immediately after his return. They then worked both for the Social Democrats in order to establish democracy in the Federal Republic of Germany. To tell me I insulted both of them by pointing out that historical judgment is not always as simple as some people like to believe is an insult in itself.

[COUNTESS]

Num 1. I never said you were a liar, I said that the who concept was a lie. How you perceive it is not in my ability to judge. Yes, Austria outlawed the Nazi's, but hwne Anshcluss came, it came with joy and fervor. I can list books and witnesses, in one or two, but thousands. What made me sick and angry, isn't whaty you wrote, but the fact that in this day and age many people David Irving for instance, are trying to minimize what really happened and reqrite the " real" history. That there were "good" Austrians", who were dismayed by these events, of course. I am part Austrian. But, by and large Anschluss was a jubilant time. The mayhem that took place after to those who weren't Aryan, also seems to be lacking in the memory of the Archduke. A;as, he is 95 and many at that age have selected memory. He may have hated the Nazi's. There were many in Germany, too who did and risked their lives. Such as Adam von Trott su Solz and Peter Bielenberg. But, the overwhelming majority, were fine with the events. Austria was not a victim. Many infamous Concentration Camp heads were Austrian. 150,000 Austrians served in the SS. You were not conscipted into the SS. Kaltenbrunner was Austrian, lest we forget, so was Hitler. The puppet French government complied with the Germans. Not the legitimate French government, which went into exile and fought.

And, yes, life was tough for Europeans after WWI. And the unfair Treaty of Versailles, also put a strain on the affairs. But Nazi Germany and its cohorts, were there and rose to power and all the joy and adulation that was seen and filmed and documented, cannot be erased, because of the longing of someone to blame others for the participation. 800,000 Austrians served in the Wehrmacht. I am sure there were many who would have rather not, but there they were. 800,000 men is a formidable amount of men. If Austria wanted no part of Germany, these men could have attempted to fight them. The French fought, lost but fought.

This is in no way a message to say what you say is a "lie". I never intended that to be. You, certainly, have a right to an opinion. Right or wrong. But as I am who I am, and to many, this not so new "we never knew anything" or "we didn't do anything", rings hollow.

As an American I take no pride in the mess George W. Bush has created, nor do I just brush away the acts of his and my government that distress me.

[COUNTESS]

What I didn't say, is that I think Otto Hapsburg is a decent man. He fled Austria during that period. He only witnessed the aftermath. He is also who he is, an Austrian patriot. Elderly, quite and wishing to see his beloved country in a better light. For that I do not blame him.

[GlitteringTiaras]

All right, let's get down to the basics here regarding Otto's statement: Austria was the primary victim of the Nazi's.

Another member asked or implied that the above statement was intentional and meant to "shock" people. Well, it certainly has. I sincerely doubt that there is a major collective group on this planet who fully agrees with Otto's beliefs. How in the world can a man say that Austria was a bigger "victim" than Poland, Czechoslovakia, Holland, France, Russia, the list goes on and on including the Jews! Where was he during the War? Hiding under a rock? Otto needs to stop playing the patriotic card, take off his rose colored glasses, and take a deep look at what happened. Yes, I agree with Jo, that Austria didn't stand a chance against Germany and Hitler. BUT, they didn't suffer nearly as bad as the groups previously mentioned.

Yes, there were Austrians who collaborated with the Nazi's. Does that make them a "victim"? Depends. Did they collaborate to save themselves and their families? Or, because it was vogue? Or did some do it because they believed in Hitler and his ideology? Were many in the position like the Princes von Hessen? Perhaps.

Yes, there were those who fully disagreed with the Nazi ideology and refused to follow them. As a result, many paid the price; either by being shot on sight or sent to the concentration camps. Which is better? Do you want to survive and suffer in miserable conditions? Or, die on spot? What would you do?

Did Austria really, collectively, suffer at the hands of the Nazis? Not as bad as the other countries I previously mentioned. If one were a Jew, Gypsy, mentally challenged, Catholic, hated the Nazi regime, or for some other circumstances that didn't "fit' the ideal Nazi mold then yes, then some Austrians suffered. Why? Their basic human rights were violated.

Overall, I'm not buying Otto's statement. Furthermore, I find it tragic that he would be so bold as to say something so incredibly ridiculous especially since he should know better. To me he is a revisionist. Intentional or not he's playing the revisionist card.

Now, I may not be well versed in the subject like others who have intensely studied WWII history. However, what I do have, compared to others, is several family members who were actually there... from D-Day till the end of the War. I've listened to their stories from surviving D-Day to their anxiety and the overall mess that was Operation Market Garden. To freezing themselves to death during the Battle of the Bulge, and finally making it into Germany. I've read their letters and viewed hundreds of photographs. From what I have learned: Not every single German or Austrian they fought against or innocent everyday people they met, at the end of the War were Nazis. They were people who were caught in the middle of an insane man's manic episode.

In any war, on both sides, there are victims and perpetrators, and it is very difficult, sixty plus years later, to judge individuals (even though I am judging Otto, but he started it) and their actions.

[COUNTESS]

Very true. Of course, their were good people on both sides. But there was no resistence to the Nazis. France fought, Poland fought, the Czechs were sold out. Too many Austrians just became a cog in the Nazi wheel and pretty high up. Were some ashamed, of course. Did some help the enemy. Jews, ect, of course. There are good people everywhere and in every situation. But to call Austria the "biggest victim", first of all is an insult to the Jews, Gysies, Russians and other nations who suffered at the hands of the Nazis. There was a Dutch Underground, a French Underground, a Polish underground, you see where I am going. All doing their best to defeat the Germans. I cannot repeat the same dialogue, but as you say, Glittering Tiaras, this statement sounds very revisionist. Those who suffered as you also stated were Jews Gypsies, ect. They didn't suffer because they were Austrians, they suffered because they were Jew, etc. I have no idea why he made this statement. I did not intend to insult anyone, but, I cannot in good conscience allow such unsustainable statement to go unchallenged.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

But there was no resistence to the Nazis.

Well there was the assassination attempt on Hitler's life but that wasn't an Austrian movement.

Actually I think it is more common than we realize for nations to be revisionist in their view of history to support a national identity.

Historically there has been a lack of a national identity for the German peoples and I think that is a source for a lot that has come out from Germany and Austria in the 20th century. Germany and Austria were not really considered nations before the 19th centuries but they were considered Empires. While the Anglo-Saxons were forming England, the Franks were forming France and the nations of Aragon and Castile were joining to form the nation-state of Spain, Germany and Austria was still just a series of loosely federated states under the aegis of the Holy Roman Emperor. This lag create a difference between a development of a national identity between the Germans and Austrians and say the English, for example.

I know I'm oversimplifying a bit but part of determining a national identity is determining who you are not. The United States was unique in not forming a basis for national identity based on ethnicity but we have our own problems which I won't go into here. However, in medieval and Renaissance Europe, there were purges of the Jews in England in the 1100s and purges of the Jews and the Moors as Spain was coming together as a nation in the Inquisitions of the 1500s as well as other purges based on religion, political affiliation, etc.

So what I think that Jo alluded to (and what I believe Otto was alluding to) was that the National state of Austria and the identity of Austria as a nation in its own right was a casualty of Hitler and WWII and in my mind, I can build a case for this separate national identity for Austria being lost even if Germany had been victorious. That's why I believe that Otto said Austria was the greatest victim of the Nazis.

Was Austria the greatest victim? No, I totally agree with you on that and for the same reason that you do, because so many Austrians appeared to welcome the Nazis during the Anschluß. However even if they were jubilant on that day, the separate national identity of Austria was going to be a casualty and as the heir of the Habsburg legacy that has been a part of Austrian history for centuries, Otto probably more than others felt this loss the hardest.

But if this is what Otto meant then as I said above I think that he used a bad choice of words.