Images of Austria 1938.

[ljadw]

You post, "The 83 % who did not appear in the photographs are not more representative than the 17 % who did appear in the photographs." Hmmm, so the fact that five times as many people did not attend the welcome demonstrations in Vienna is less representative than the relatively small minority who did? I think you will find that your logic is very severely flawed here!

You post, "You can't say that the 83 % were hostile/indifferent to the Anschluss because they remained at home ." I didn't, so I don't have to defend that. However, as you have raised the matter, it is least as implausible that their absence indicated support for the German invasion. As Bukey says at the top of p.33: “How many tears were shed behind closed doors is impossible to say.”

You post, "The majority of the 83% approved the Anschluss." Perhaps, but as ljadw would say, there is no proof of that. Why? Because Hitler rigged the conduct of his referendum, quite possibly unnecessarily. There is no other measure of public opinion because Hitler prevented Schussnoigg's referendum taking place by invading and there are no publuc opinion polls from the period. So what are you basing your claim on? I would suggest you are making an assumption which may or may not hold true.

You post, "See the results of the plebiscite in Vienna: these were not falsified." Again, you clearly have not researched the conduct of the plebiscite. Take a look at the ballot paper. Read the account of Albert Goering (Herman's brother) of conditions under which it was conducted. The whole plebiscite was rotten and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You post, "There were less than 17 % of the Londoners who were present on May 8 at the gates of Buckingham .They were not more representative than those who were absent." Yup. Unsurprisingly. virtually everyone was in favour of a victorious peace. Two months later they voted Churchill out. What is your point?

You post, "Those who were absent ( in Vienna and London ) were not absent because they disagreed with the festivities ." In London that is certainly true. However, in "Red Vienna" that is much less clear.

You post, "In 1966 the British Football team won the World Cup and was applauded by a minority of the British people, but that will not say that the others preferred that Germany would have won ." True. Your point is what?

You post, "Did a minority or majority of the British population in 1945 appear on the streets of the UK to celebrate VE Day?" I doubt there are statistics available, but I would imagine that virtually everyone came onto the streets somewhere to celebrate a victorious peace and the end to the deaths of relatives and friends. Again, your point is what?

You ask, "Do you have any evidence that the images were “to some degree staged”? That’s your claim, prove it. Provide some sources." It is my claim. The photographs provide their own evidence of stage management. If there was no stage management, you have to explain the motorcades, the parades, the uniformed troops, police and party members stewarding crowds, the speaking tours, the identical long banners hanging from public buildings, the large numbers of identical swastika flags carried by the crowds, etc. etc.. There is some good footage of all this on Youtube. You have yourself already conceded Reich German cameramen and broadcasters certainly provided extensive coverage of the Anschluss. How do you explain the rest?

You post, "The Germans were welcomed as liberators, not invaders." Yes, demonstrably by 40% of the population of Linz and 17% of the population of Vienna, who appear in the photographs. They weren't welcomed at all by 60% of the population of Linz (as near to a home town as Hitler had in his youth) or by 83% of the population of Viennan (the national capital). We simply have no way of knowing what they actually thought. All we know is that they didn't turn out.

You post, "The Austrians didn’t think of themselves as being “under occupation”." Again, we don't know exactly what the Austrians thought. Most appear to have been accepting of the situation and the others had no means of safely displaying any objection.

You post, "Thousands of political opponents were arrested and imprisoned AFTER the Anschluss happened." Tens of thousands, actually. Is this meant to be a point demonstrating Austrian enthusiasm for the initial German occupation? I must be missing something!

You post, "Those people weren’t arrested and imprisoned because they opposed the Anschluss." Who know what they were all arrested for? Opposition to Anschluss with Nazi Germany seems a likely contributary factor. In addition, 6% of the population were banned from voting.

You post. "If there had been any form of resistance then it would have formed when the idea of a plebiscite to keep Austria independent was being talked about by many people." What does this mean? That opposition should have occurred when Schussnigg first proposed his referendum? That Austrian Nazis should have been more active against it so that the embarrassment of a German Army invasion could have been avoided?

You post. "There wasn’t even any underground resistance to it. Even opponents of the Nazis didn’t oppose it." How could they? Some 40,000 of their leaders were arrested, German troops were in residence and Nazi thugs were on the streets beating up Jews.

You post, "There are many examples of public protests during the Third Reich." Really? When and where? I can think of one in early 1943 and quite a few in the last weeks of the war. What are you thinking of?

You post, " In the occupied territories plenty of the occupied peoples openly resisted" Not in the first month of German occupation they didn't, any more than the Austrians did!

You ask, "Why the hell do you think so many became partisans?" "So many" didn't in most of Western Europe until quite late in the war. These then included Austrians, of whom a company operated with the Yugoslav Partisans.

You ask, "Why do you think so many occupied peoples helped Jews by giving them ‘Aryan Papers’?" "So many"? How many? Remember, the great majority of Jews in Nazi occupied Europe died at Nazi hands.

You ask, "did you ever provide a source for your claim that the crowds of Austrians welcoming the Nazis were self-selected"? I don't have to. If they weren't "self selecting", (i.e. there voluntarily because they supported what was happening, or at least curious), who are you suggesting was selecting them? The Nazi Party? If I was you, I would settle for them being "self selecting"!!!!

You post, "No one denies that the plebiscite was rigged to convey that literally EVERY Austrian agreed with the Anschluss - which was obviously not the case - but, historians accept that the overall Austrian population did welcome it and there was no resistance or protest from a sizeable amount of Austrians." True, but as your quote from Bukey says, "In what specific ways the April plebiscite reflected the desires and wishes of the Austrian population must remain a matter of speculation."

You post, "The film shows images of a provincial town in which the locals have turned out en masse to demonstrate their support for the invading Nazis." Without knowing which town, its population and the total turn out, this tells us no more than the photographs under discussion and we can't say with confidence that "the footage shows genuine support from a small town", just from an indeterminate proportion of its population. There were some very strongly pro-Nazi areas in the south where this is possible but, as was found out in the 1934 coup attempt, they were not necessarily represenative of the country at large. More details please.

You post, "The streets are hung with hundreds of red, black and white swastika banners and the town square has been hastily renamed "Adolf Hitler Platz"." And this is not stage management?

You post. "The idea that the images and film footage are just simply Nazi propaganda is a way to make out that the Anschluss was an invasion and that most Austrians didn’t want it… which of course is not supported by any evidence." I didn't say most of that, so I don't have to defend it.

I did point out that the German Army's arrival was an invasion. It was conducted as a military operation with orders to suppress any resistance with severity. The main reason there was no resistance was that Schussnigg ordered his Army and the Frontmiliz not to do so. He did this because he had no hope of resisting Germany for long, no outside allies and was concerned about Austrian loss of life, which Hitler clearly wasn't. The reason why the German Army was used was that Hitler was not at all sure of the state of Austrian opinion about Schussnigg's questionable plebiscite and felt compelled to prevent it taking place. It was undoubtedly an invasion. It arguably remained to some degree an occupation until 2nd Panzer Division, an initially all German formation that was barracked in Vienna, became largely filled with Austrians a couple of years later.

Enough for now.

Cheers,

Sid

1 The 83 % : it is dishonest to say that 5 times as many people did not attend the welcome demonstrations is more important than the minority who did .
Why ? Because it was impossible that 100 % could attend the welcome demonstrations . Even 50 % was too much . Those who attended the welcome demonstrations were those who COULD attend the welcome demonstrations . The others had to work,were too old, were sick,were mothers with children, etc .
Besides there was no place for all inhabitants of Vienna .
It was a minority of the New Yorkers who welcomed Lindbergh,a minority of the Berliners who welcomed the returning soldiers in July 1940 .Only a minority of the inhabitants of DC were in the streets where the funeral of JFK passed,etc,etc..
2 You can 't use Bukey ,because he said that he didn't know how many of those who remained at home,were hostile to the Anschluss .
3 Of course the majority of the 83 % approved the Anschluss : Socialists and Nazis had a majority of 70 % ,and they supported the Anschluss .
4 That the referendum was not fair does not mean that the results were falsified : in Burgenland there were 297 Führergemeinde ( =towns with a yes majority of 100 % ) on a total of 324 ;if the results were falsified there would be 324 Führergemeinde .
In the small village of Pfafflar (Tirol ) all 123 voters said yes, but in Gramais (also Tirol ) there were 43 yes voters and 1 who said no and the local party chief was angry because the village did not have the title of Führergemeinde .
In the district of Reutte there were 33 villages ,only 18 of them became Führergemeinde(there were 9401 yes voters and 39 no voters ) .If the referendum results were falsified, there would be no no voters .
Source : Der 1938 Anschluss in den Bezirken Tirols .
In Vienna 0,4 % said no.
In Burgenland 0,037 % ,which is only 8 % of 0,4 %.
In Innervillgraten (Tirol ) 26,7 % voted no ( for mostly non political reasons ) .
If the results were falsified,this would not happen .
A number of the 105 Führergemeinde in Carinthia were villages with a majority of Slovenians .
5 Saying that 40000 of the leaders of the opponents to the Anschluss were arrested,is total nonsense . There were no 40000 leaders .These 40000 were arrested because they were/were considered/were claimed hostile to Nazism , not because they opposed the Anschluss.The leaders of the opposition were outside Austria ,since 1933,or in the prisons of Schuschnigg,since 1933. Renner was an exception .
6 The fact that 6/8 % of the voters were excluded ( not all for political reasons ) does not explain the fact that 99 % voted yes,as there is no proof that those who could not vote would have voted no and that they would vote if they were allowed to do it .
Neither can the success be explained by pressure, opportunism , propaganda : hostility to Schuschnigg was more important .Also important is the fact that people vote mostly not because political reasons ( who had read Mein Kampf ) but for personal reasons : 30 years ago ,some in the US said to old Bush ( who lost ) : it is the economy,you stupid .It was the same in Austria ,and even more important : countless young people could not marry because they had no job and they blamed Schuschnigg,while in Germany there was no shortage of jobs, but of workers and while in Germany there was social security which did not exist in Austria .And these people voted against Schuschnigg,although they belonged to socialist or Patriotic Front families .
About those who were excluded :Martina Mikovits said the following in ''Die Volksabstimmung von 10.April 1938 in Burgenland: ( P 35 )
''Natürlich muss auch darauf hingewiesen werden dass von vornhein ca 180000-360000 Österreicher von der Stimmafgabe ausgeschossen waren,jedoch wäre es unrichtig diese Zahl präsumtiv mit Nein-Stimmen gleichzusetsen ."
Translation :
Of course one must point to the fact that 180000/360000 Austrians were already prevented from voting, but,it would be not correct to say that this number consisted probably of no voters .

Other points : later .

[George L Gregory]

2 You can 't use Bukey ,because he said that he didn't know how many of those who remained at home,were hostile to the Anschluss .

Guttridge will quote Bukey when he thinks that Bukey agrees with his viewpoints. But, Guttridge being Guttridge seems to be unaware or ignorant that Bukey’s own words contradict his own viewpoints.

Example:

Guttridge claims that the initial crowds were “to some degree staged”.

When he is asked to provide secondary sources he continuously ignores the request and instead tries to reverse the burden of proof and asks me to explain this and that. Bukey wrote that the crowds were not staged.

3 Of course the majority of the 83 % approved the Anschluss : Socialists and Nazis had a majority of 70 % ,and they supported the Anschluss .

Again, Guttridge won’t quote Bukey’s words:

mFirst, since both Cardinal Innitzer and Karl Renner had endorsed the Anschluss, at least two-thirds of the electorate could be counted on to approve it.

5 Saying that 40000 of the leaders of the opponents to the Anschluss were arrested,is total nonsense . There were no 40000 leaders .These 40000 were arrested because they were/were considered/were claimed hostile to Nazism , not because they opposed the Anschluss.The leaders of the opposition were outside Austria ,since 1933,or in the prisons of Schuschnigg,since 1933. Renner was an exception .

It’s another one of Guttridge’s inventions.

6 The fact that 6/8 % of the voters were excluded ( not all for political reasons ) does not explain the fact that 99 % voted yes,as there is no proof that those who could not vote would have voted no and that they would vote if they were allowed to do it .
Neither can the success be explained by pressure, opportunism , propaganda : hostility to Schuschnigg was more important .Also important is the fact that people vote mostly not because political reasons ( who had read Mein Kampf ) but for personal reasons : 30 years ago ,some in the US said to old Bush ( who lost ) : it is the economy,you stupid .It was the same in Austria ,and even more important : countless young people could not marry because they had no job and they blamed Schuschnigg,while in Germany there was no shortage of jobs, but of workers and while in Germany there was social security which did not exist in Austria .And these people voted against Schuschnigg,although they belonged to socialist or Patriotic Front families .
About those who were excluded :Martina Mikovits said the following in ''Die Volksabstimmung von 10.April 1938 in Burgenland: ( P 35 )
''Natürlich muss auch darauf hingewiesen werden dass von vornhein ca 180000-360000 Österreicher von der Stimmafgabe ausgeschossen waren,jedoch wäre es unrichtig diese Zahl präsumtiv mit Nein-Stimmen gleichzusetsen ."
Translation :
Of course one must point to the fact that 180000/360000 Austrians were already prevented from voting, but,it would be not correct to say that this number consisted probably of no voters .

Other points : later .

Yup. Again, to quote Bukey:

The available evidence, although anecdotal and impressionistic, indicates that by 1938 most Austrians were seeking dramatic political change. Impelled by economic misery, disdain for the existing political system, and growing awe of the German Reich, a significant number saw amalgamation as the only way out of their misery. Within the welter of confusing, multifaceted, and oscillating attitudes, however, there was no consensual commitment to the ideological tenets of National Socialism. At the very most, no more than a third of the Austrian people had become true believers. Schuschnigg's estimate of two-thirds support for his plebiscite on Austrian independence was, therefore, probably correct: once Socialist and Catholic elites approved the referendum, they could be counted on to deliver the votes. Conversely, when the plebiscite was canceled and the Anschluss actually took place, the issue of Austrian identity seemed settled forever. This helps to explain why there occurred such an astonishing outpouring of euphoria and support for the new Greater Germany, meaning a mighty union of Germanic peoples under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, himself an Austrian.

[gebhk]

And so much for Tigre's plea that we

avoid ideological / political discussions, just pictures........

[George L Gregory]

And so much for Tigre's plea that we

avoid ideological / political discussions, just pictures........

Guttridge can’t help himself.

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=255608#p2356139

He always does it.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi gebhk,

Unfortunately these photos are inherently political because they were designed to promote a very particulr political perspective - that of the Nazis.

I originally posted:

"It is as well to remind ourselves in viewing all this that (1) these are all, without exception, Nazi propaganda images and (2) only a minority of the Austrian population actually turned out to greet the German invaders. Most stayed at home, especially in Vienna."

These are facts that nobody here has disputed and are therefore presumably uncontoversial. Yet many people still seem to be surprised by them and not a few offended for some reason.

There are always some posters who want the Nazi narrative, as illustrated in the photos, to be accepted almost uncritically and they usually object to it being questioned. (Tigre, who, in my opinion, is among the most valuable contributors ever on AHF, is emphatically not one of these).

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi GLG,

You post, "When one lives in a dictatorship then it’s not easy to protest publicly......

The Malicious Practices Act 1933 was passed on 20 March 1933 which made it illegal to speak wrongly or criticise the newly established Nazi regime and its leaders. The whole point in the act was to get rid of the enemies of the new regime. A year later the Treachery Act of 1934 was passed on 20 December 1934 which made it illegal to critcise the Nazi Party badges and uniforms, restricted the right to freedom of speech, and criminalized all remarks causing putative severe damage to the welfare of the Third Reich, the prestige of the Nazi government or the Nazi Party.

No wonder people didn’t publicly protest against the Nazis."

YES, YES, YES! So you do see why it was difficult for any Austrian opposition to express itself after the Anschluss with Germany. Thank you for your belated support!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You post of me, "Guttridge will quote Bukey when he thinks that Bukey agrees with his viewpoints." Damn right. Is this wrong? Are you the only one allowed to use Bukey?

For, I think, the third time, you have claimed I posted "the initial crowds "were to some degree staged."." I have denied posting this each time and yet you repeat it. If I posted this, I challenge you to put up where it can be found? You have put your integrity at stake now. Well?

You post, "When he is asked to provide secondary sources he continuously ignores the request." Yup, because I have given even better PRIMARY sources instead - the photos and film.

For anybody wondering what you are desperately trying to avoid answering about the level of stage management of these occasions illustrated in these photos, it is the following:

How did this all happen without a degree of "stage management":

Did thousands of German troops just happen to be on leave in uniform in Vienna, walking in step in the same direction at the same time?

Did thousands of Nazi Party supporters just happen to be lining the edge of roads entirely by coincidence at a miraculously convenient moment?

Did entire squadrons of the Luftwaffe accidentally stray over Vienna due to some extraordinary simultaneous navigation error?

Is it mere happenstance that Hitler found himself driving in a column of other official vehicles at exactly the same time, at exactly the same speed, in exactly the same direction along hundreds of kilometers of Austrian roads?

Did much of the Nazi leadership just happen to have chosen Vienna as a holiday destination at the same time by some amazing piece of synchronicity?

Did Hitler accidentally just happen to walk into a theatre containing a dais fitted with microphones and festooned with Nazi banners, where the great and the good of Austrian Nazism just happened to be already seated for some other performance and where cameras and official photographers were waiting?

Was it sheer chance that hundreds of identically sized swastika banners were suddenly draped from public buildings and lamp posts? Did they just happen to be lying around peoples' houses?

Likewise, isn't it a bit of a coincidence that thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of identical small swastika flags found themselves in the hands of the crowds? What are the odds of so many people turning up with identical flags, if it wasn't organized?

Who had all the giant banners containing huge slogans just lying about their relatively small houses and flats?

Please explain how all this happened without a degree of stage management?

You post, my "viewpoints of the primary sources (images and footage) of the Anschluss are not sources." So are you proposing that the photos and films of crowds welcoming Hitler are not useable primary evidence? Why not? Do you think they are doctored, or faked? I don't.

You do understand that secondary sources are further removed from events than primary sources?

You post, "Bukey wrote that the initial crowds were not staged by the Nazis and that for the month between the initial overtaking of Austria and the plebiscite there were staged events." I should point out, for the FOURTH time, that I also believe "the initial crowds were not staged"). They were there voluntarily either out of support or curiosity. However, in Vienna their numbers were only about 17% of the population and in Linz (the hometown of Hitler's youth) about 40%. Furthermore, as the photos and film you won't acknowledge show, there was undoubtedly a degree of stage management of the occasion.

Must go now. I will finish lateer.

Cheers,

Sid.

[George L Gregory]

Hi GLG,

You post, "When one lives in a dictatorship then it’s not easy to protest publicly......

The Malicious Practices Act 1933 was passed on 20 March 1933 which made it illegal to speak wrongly or criticise the newly established Nazi regime and its leaders. The whole point in the act was to get rid of the enemies of the new regime. A year later the Treachery Act of 1934 was passed on 20 December 1934 which made it illegal to critcise the Nazi Party badges and uniforms, restricted the right to freedom of speech, and criminalized all remarks causing putative severe damage to the welfare of the Third Reich, the prestige of the Nazi government or the Nazi Party.

No wonder people didn’t publicly protest against the Nazis."

YES, YES, YES! So you do see why it was difficult for any Austrian opposition to express itself after the Anschluss with Germany. Thank you for your belated support!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those laws were the laws of the German Reich, not Austria during the Anschluss.

Don’t twist my words.

You post of me, "Guttridge will quote Bukey when he thinks that Bukey agrees with his viewpoints." Damn right. Is this wrong? Are you the only one allowed to use Bukey?

You misunderstood what I meant. Quote him all you want, but put his words into context and don’t just post small snippets.

For, I think, the third time, you have claimed I posted "the initial crowds "were to some degree staged."." I have denied posting this each time and yet you repeat it. If I posted this, I challenge you to put up where it can be found? You have put your integrity at stake now. Well?

Try remembering what you post before posting it.

You post."Also, just because the images were used by the Nazis, does not mean that they were staged or fake. There’s no evidence of any thing like that." They are certainly not fake. However, the occasions were without doubt to some degree "staged". For example, hundreds of identical, extremely long, swastika penants don't spontaneously appear lining public roads and public buildings without a degree of stage management. What was probably largely genuine was the voluntary attendance of 17% of Vienna's population. However, equally genuine, and numerically far more significant, was the absence of 83% of Vienna's population.

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=255608&start=30#p2378411

I did a bit of research myself and found from Bukey that during the lead up to the plebiscite there were plenty of staged events and I asked you if you meant that rather than the crowds during the actual Anschluss.

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=255608&start=45#p2379322

You then ignored my and posted the same hogwash you’ve posted a few times now.

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=255608&start=45#p2379331

You make absolutely no sense.

You post, "When he is asked to provide secondary sources he continuously ignores the request." Yup, because I have given even better PRIMARY sources instead - the photos and film.

What can be inserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Nobody gives a hoot what your opinions of the footage and images are. The fact that you can’t find a single historian to back up what you say speaks volumes.

For anybody wondering what you are desperately trying to avoid answering about the level of stage management of these occasions illustrated in these photos, it is the following:

How did this all happen without a degree of "stage management":

Did thousands of German troops just happen to be on leave in uniform in Vienna, walking in step in the same direction at the same time?

Did thousands of Nazi Party supporters just happen to be lining the edge of roads entirely by coincidence at a miraculously convenient moment?

Did entire squadrons of the Luftwaffe accidentally stray over Vienna due to some extraordinary simultaneous navigation error?

Is it mere happenstance that Hitler found himself driving in a column of other official vehicles at exactly the same time, at exactly the same speed, in exactly the same direction along hundreds of kilometers of Austrian roads?

Did much of the Nazi leadership just happen to have chosen Vienna as a holiday destination at the same time by some amazing piece of synchronicity?

Did Hitler accidentally just happen to walk into a theatre containing a dais fitted with microphones and festooned with Nazi banners, where the great and the good of Austrian Nazism just happened to be already seated for some other performance and where cameras and official photographers were waiting?

Was it sheer chance that hundreds of identically sized swastika banners were suddenly draped from public buildings and lamp posts? Did they just happen to be lying around peoples' houses?

Likewise, isn't it a bit of a coincidence that thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of identical small swastika flags found themselves in the hands of the crowds? What are the odds of so many people turning up with identical flags, if it wasn't organized?

Who had all the giant banners containing huge slogans just lying about their relatively small houses and flats?

Please explain how all this happened without a degree of stage management?1

The burden of proof is on you Guttridge. No one is obliged to answer your questions.

You post, my "viewpoints of the primary sources (images and footage) of the Anschluss are not sources." So are you proposing that the photos and films of crowds welcoming Hitler are not useable primary evidence? Why not? Do you think they are doctored, or faked? I don't.

But, all you have are your opinions. Are you calling Bukey a liar?

You do understand that secondary sources are further removed from events than primary sources?

Guttridge, I am wanting to read more than just your opinions on the subject.

You post, "Bukey wrote that the initial crowds were not staged by the Nazis and that for the month between the initial overtaking of Austria and the plebiscite there were staged events." I should point out, for the FOURTH time, that I also believe "the initial crowds were not staged"). They were there voluntarily either out of support or curiosity. However, in Vienna their numbers were only about 17% of the population and in Linz (the hometown of Hitler's youth) about 40%. Furthermore, as the photos and film you won't acknowledge show, there was undoubtedly a degree of stage management of the occasion.

Must go now. I will finish lateer.

Cheers,

Sid.

See above. First you claimed that they were staged and now you’re doing a u-turn. I wonder why…

[ljadw]

Hi gebhk,

Unfortunately these photos are inherently political because they were designed to promote a very particulr political perspective - that of the Nazis.

I originally posted:

"It is as well to remind ourselves in viewing all this that (1) these are all, without exception, Nazi propaganda images and (2) only a minority of the Austrian population actually turned out to greet the German invaders. Most stayed at home, especially in Vienna."

These are facts that nobody here has disputed and are therefore presumably uncontoversial. Yet many people still seem to be surprised by them and not a few offended for some reason.

There are always some posters who want the Nazi narrative, as illustrated in the photos, to be accepted almost uncritically and they usually object to it being questioned. (Tigre, who, in my opinion, is among the most valuable contributors ever on AHF, is emphatically not one of these).

Cheers,

Sid.

Both of these points are loaded and unproved,unprovable,and meaningless assertions .
1 That everything was Nazi propaganda can not,can never be proved .Besides, it is meaningless as it is not so that propaganda images are always false and,that the Germans used facts as propaganda,does not mean that the facts were staged .
2 About the number that was on the streets to greet the Germans ( who were NOT considered to be invaders by the Austrian people , and only the Austrians of 1938 have the right to say if the Germans were invaders, not a non Austrian 83 years later .) : this number is totally besides the question ,as there is no proof that those who remained at home,were hostile to the arrival of the Germans .Besides, there is always only a minority that is greeting the liberators : only a minority of the French,of the Belgians were greeting the British and US liberators .That says nothing about the opinion of the French and Belgians in 1944 .
In an other post, Sid claimed that everything was organised . That proves that he has no knowledge of Austria and the Austrian Nazis in 1938 :there are today (and in 1938 many more) 2095 Gemeinde and 14904 Ortschaften in Austria : a lot of them had no electricity in 1938, no access to a railway, no newspapers, of course no cars ,and the communications with other Gemeinde/Ortschaften were very difficult ,or almost non existent .Most of them had less than 1000 inhabitants ( there is still today a Gemeinde with 41 inhabitants ) .
And in most of these Gemeinde the Nazi party did not exist ,thus, how could Berlin give the needed orders to stage everything?
Besides, the Austrian Nazis were split in countless hostile and corrupt groups and the party HQ was not capable to create an organized and centralized party . And Berlin knew it : Germans were appointed to rule Austria,the Austrian Gauleiter of Vienna was very fast fired,because of corruption and incompetence,...by the German Bürckel .
The ( inconvenient ) fact, the non PC fact is that the results of the plebiscite were not falsified ,that there was no organised attempt to bring 17 % of the Austrians on the streets,because it was impossible .
The ( inconvenient ) fact, the non PC fact is that the 83 % who remained at home ,did not remain at home because of hostility to the Germans : if these 83 % had the power to remain at home on 11 March, they also had the power to remain at home on April 10 ,or to vote no . And we know that they did not remain at home on April 10,but that they were voting and that they voted yes .
In 1930 the socialists got 37 % of the votes at the regional elections in Burgenland .
In April 1938 171491 inhabitants of Burgenland voted yes, 63 voted no to the Anschluss .
The local Nazis could not transform 60000 votes for the socialists in 60 votes against the Anschluss .

[Hans1906]

As in many threads before, your mutual quotes and counter quotes are counterproductive, tedious to read.

Instead of getting to a point, you exhaust yourselves in quotations, and then below that becomes one sentence, rarely more, quickly and often without substance.

Not good, who still reads all these sermons ?


Hans

[gebhk]

I have to agree with Hans.

GLG, Ijadw and Sid - what on earth you are agruing about I couldn't even say, given everyone (including myself) seems to agree that we don't know and, almost certainly never will, what the exact level of support for the anschluss and, separately, the Nazis, was. I think we all (and, it seems, all historians) agree that on balance although we don't know how big the majority, nevertheless the majority was in favour or at least indifferent/undecided.

Every army marching into another territory does so with tremendous pomp and circumstance to overawe any potential opposition and thus to avoid unnecessary problems. But in any case, any movement of any army is stage managed by its command and no one is arguing that point. The march-past of bodies of troops will always attract rubber-neckers (especially in the days before TV and ubiquitous entertainment), some of whom will be enthisuastic and all will certainly be excited. So what? It doesn't prove the crowds were stage-managed any more than that they were not. We all agree that it doesn't prove anything other than what it is - a lot of excited people watching soldiers go by.

I don't think anyone viewing this forum is so dense as to not realise that these pictures had a propaganda value for one of the parties involved.

It just seems to be argument for the sake of arguing which has completely derailed an otherwise interesting subject.

Bestest
K

[George L Gregory]

Hi gebhk,

Guttridge has made two unsubstantiated claims. Firstly, he claims that the initial crowds were “to some degree staged” - although he has now done a u-turn and denied even posting that even though I quoted him (see above). Secondly, he thinks that opposition to the Anschluss was “a likely contributary factor” why so many people got arrested during the initial days after the Anschluss (12 March) took place.

[ljadw]

In post 1 Tigre asked people to avoid political discussions .
In post 6 ,Sid started a political discussion by saying
a All images are Nazi propaganda images
b Only a minority of the Austrians turned out to greet the German invader. Most stayed at home,especially in Vienna .
a is wrong : some of these images were used for propaganda aims,but were not staged .The images of the return of Gagarin were used by the Soviets for propaganda aims, but they were not staged .
b is unproved : there is NO proof that most Austrians stayed at home: Vienna is NOT Austria .
b is also meaningless as there is no proof that those who stayed at home ,did this for political reasons .Countless examples from other such events in other countries indicate that those who were absent,are not absent for political reasons .
About the Germans being invaders : it is not on Sid to give his opinion about this, but on the Austrians of 1938 and only on them .The fact that 99 % of the Austrians approved the Anschluss ,indicates that they did not consider the Germans as invaders .

[gebhk]

Sigh.

[gebhk]

The fact that 99 % of the Austrians approved the Anschluss ,indicates that they did not consider the Germans as invaders .

Except it isn't a fact. In reality, every part of this statement is untrue.
1) 99% of Austrians did not approve the anchluss because a great many were ineligible to vote becuase they were too young, too old, too mad or too something else to vote. What percentage of the population is that? And that's before we even consider the issue of the deliberate exclusion of some otherwise eligible voters who were excluded just in case they vote 'nein'.
2) That approval of the anschluss is tantamount to not considering the Germans invaders is your wholly unjustified assumption not a fact. Most folk, including myself, would consider this inlikely in the extreme. Indeed, given the extensive intimidation during a non-secret ballot, there is little assurance that voting 'yes' indicated the voter did, in fact, approve of the anschluss, much less that they did not consider the Germans invaders.

In short the only thing that can be deduced from the fact that 99% OF THOSE ELIGIBLE AND PERMITTED TO VOTE voted for the anschluss is that 99% OF THOSE ELIGIBLE AND PERMITTED TO VOTE probably voted for the anschluss.

Oh, hell, now I am getting drawn into this inane argument myself.

Pleasee stop and give us some pictures instead, like Tigre asked.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi gebhk,

You post, ".....given everyone (including myself) seems to agree that we don't know and, almost certainly never will, what the exact level of support for the anschluss and, separately, the Nazis, was. I think we all (and, it seems, all historians) agree that on balance although we don't know how big the majority, nevertheless the majority was in favour or at least indifferent/undecided."

Yes. Exactly my point.

I have been arguing this for years against people who think they do know, often based on the uncritical acceptance of Nazi material, such as these photos. For example, they seem unaware or unwilling to accept that the crowds photographed in Vienna were a relatively small minority of its population. The photos don't show this on their own. They require explanation if they are not to continue to serve their original Nazi propaganda purposes.

As regards your other points. We have a choice. We can either let what we consider errors or falsehoods stand, or challenge them.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. Besides. I am enjoying myself.