The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Non-Reigning Houses > Royal Families of Germany and Austria > The Imperial House of Habsburg

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 03-18-2008, 10:25 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-18-2008, 01:59 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
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.
__________________

__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-20-2008, 01:11 PM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post

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.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-20-2008, 09:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,474
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-20-2008, 09:27 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: .a, United States
Posts: 3,345
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-20-2008, 09:32 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,474
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-20-2008, 09:37 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
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.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-20-2008, 09:49 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: .a, United States
Posts: 3,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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?

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-20-2008, 09:56 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,474
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-21-2008, 05:23 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-21-2008, 12:01 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,474
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-21-2008, 01:30 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,474
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-21-2008, 08:02 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: .a, United States
Posts: 3,345
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-21-2008, 11:04 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,474
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-22-2008, 12:54 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
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.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-25-2008, 09:53 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Very true. Of course, their were good people on both sides. But there was no resistence to the Nazis.
Oh, but there was. Maybe you'd like to check out the homepage of the

Documentation Centre of Austrian Resistance (DÖW).

Here's some information about it in English.
  • was founded in 1963 by ex-resistance fighters and anti-Fascist historians. DÖW is a foundation since 1983 and receives financial support from the Austrian Government, the City of Vienna and the Verein Dokumentationsarchiv.
  • Research themes: resistance and persecution (1934-1945), exile, Nazi crimes (especially the Holocaust), right-wing extremism after 1945, restitution
  • Activities: securing and depositing source material for archival use and scientific evaluation; managing the archive and library, including provision of an advisory service for students, journalists etc.; education and information facilities for youths, school pupils and those involved in adult education; providing educational material for the classroom, organizing talks in schools with survivors of the Nazi terror (Zeitzeugen); exhibitions, guided tours of archive, library and museum.
  • Information on DÖW activities, announcements of conferences and lectures, a review of historical and political journals, book reviews etc. are included in the Newsletter of DÖW (Mitteilungen), which appears five times a year. The Newsletter is sent free of charge to interested parties.
End of quote.

Here's what they say in their online documentary about resistance in Austria:

Putting up resistance to a totalitarian regime that suppresses the population by means of terror, requires a high degree of courage and willingness to risk all, even one’s life. Few people are willing to sacrifice the utmost. Organizing resistance in Austria in 1938 faced considerable difficulties. Among the negative factors were the absence of an armed resistance to the German annexation at the beginning, the brutal and massive persecution, and the flight abroad of thousands of poten-tial opponents of the Nazi regime. As the resistance organizations operated to a great extent separately from their German counterparts, one can justifiably speak of a genuine Austrian resistance. It was structured along political and ideological lines. The two main groupings consisted of adherents of working-class parties who were concentrated mainly in the industrial centers in eastern Austria, and those of a Catholic, conservative or bourgeois background.
Those involved in the Austrian resistance restricted themselves mainly to traditional forms, such as setting up organizations or distributing flyers and newspapers. This policy demanded heavy sacrifices in human lives and was not very effective. Taking into account the high number of victims, the practical results were meager and never endangered the NS-regime. It brought neither serious disruption to the Nazi war industry nor was it able to win majority support in the population. The liberation of Austria from Nazi rule was solely an achievement of the Allied armed forces and 30,000 of their soldiers fell on Austrian soil. However, since the 1943 Moscow Declaration of the Allies demanded that Austria must make a »contribution of her own« to her liberation, resistance proved to be of eminent political value in the postwar years, as the negotiations on the Austrian State Treaty (1955) were to demonstrate.




End of quote.



Of course Otto von Habsburg knows about the catholic bourgeois resistance as a lot of relatives, including two of his brothers, were actively involved in underground actions against the Nazis in Austria.


Another information I want to add: both German and Austrian laws today see to it that lies about the holocaust, eg. denying it are not covered by the right of free speech and that deliberate infringements against these Anti-Nazi laws (which include in addition the prohibition of Nazi or SA/SS-symbols etc.) are prosecuted. The German government tries in several ways to convince other countries to act accordingly but is more often than failing, as the German wishes to stop these lies and the whitewashing of Nazi crimes collide with the freedom of speech as it is understood in other countries (again: including the USA).

So there was resistance in Austria and there is active action against the telling of those lies you hate so much. Probably the books you mention who give wrong information about the Nazi crimes would not be allowed for translation and circulation in Germany and Austria.

As an afterthought two articles I found at today's Google news in English language:

Fron the Jerusalem Post: Germany far-right leader charged with incitement | Jerusalem Post
Germany far-right leader charged with incitement.

And from the GulfNews: Gulfnews: Hypocrisy over free speech issues

Hypocrisy over free speech issues

Citizens of Western democracies tend to believe they enjoy free speech whereas, in fact, there are limits in the form of laws covering racial incitement, blasphemy, anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.
In the US, Americans' constitutional right to free speech can be suspended if it is deemed likely to incite imminent lawless action. In Britain the glorification of terrorism is a crime.
In France, Germany and Austria, Holocaust denial is a serious offence.
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-25-2008, 06:27 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,474
Thank goodness.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-26-2008, 07:47 AM
Jo of Palatine's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 3,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Thank goodness.
For what?
__________________
'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-26-2008, 05:16 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,474
Oh, sorry. That Germany tries to stop the whitewashing of lies. The Freedom of Speech area, is a discussion unto itself. My father always told me that it was okay to let people say what they had to and then refute it. I can't always say that I think the same way, although I am a great proponent of free speech and hate when it is abridged. But, just because one says something, does not make it true or even acceptable. Should lies and distortions apply to Freedom of Speech? I say, yes. But, they should never go unchallenged.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-10-2009, 03:24 PM
claypoint2's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 363
My concern with Archduke Otto's statement is not as nuanced as the above debate over Austria's relative collaboration or resistance in the Anschluss.

My difficulty is this: To say that Austria was the biggest victim of the Nazis ignores the fact that more than 6 million of our Jewish brothers & sisters (I speak as an Anglican Christian) were systematically murdered by Hitler's regime. No single country -- whether subjected to occupation or bombarded as an enemy -- suffered as much as the community of human beings that are the Jews.

I have a real fondness for Archduke Otto, his family, and the history that they embody, but his comment strikes me as deeply misguided and dismissive of reality.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Archduke Karl of Austria and Princess Zita of Bourbon-Parma - 1911 Elsa M. Historical Royal Weddings 21 Yesterday 06:43 PM
Princess Astrid Of Belgium & Archduke Lorenz of Austria-Este 1984 Alexandria Royal Weddings 64 06-09-2013 01:00 PM
Death and Funeral of HI&RH Archduke Karl Ludwig (1918-2007) Marengo The Imperial House of Habsburg 27 11-10-2009 09:50 AM
Archduke Philipp of Austria and Mayasuni A. Heath, February 2006 Synnadene Weddings: Non-Reigning Houses & Nobility 13 12-02-2008 01:16 PM
Archduke Konrad of Austria & Ashmita Goswami, December 2005 Synnadene Weddings: Non-Reigning Houses & Nobility 30 04-10-2006 07:36 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince felipe crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman palace picture of the month pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:57 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]