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

[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]

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.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

 

[COUNTESS]

Thank goodness.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

Thank goodness.

For what?

 

[COUNTESS]

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.

 

[claypoint2]

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.

 

[Lena]

They prefer leaving everything as it is,to continue to eat their Sachertorte under a clear blue sky,and dream of days gone by,be it the
Empire or their fellow countryman AH.

That is about as true as the cliché of the always happy and helpful dutch. That this doesn´t go for all, we could see on Queen´s day.