Images of Austria 1938.

[gebhk]

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

Except there were no errors or falsehoods standing in this thread until you put them up so that you can knock them down.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi GLG,

You have now for five times claimed I posted, "the initial crowds "were to some degree staged.".

Four times I told you that I didn't. I actually wrote, "However, the occasions were without doubt to some degree "staged"." Which is true. Furthermore, I gave you multiple examples, none of which you have disputed. (If you now wish to do so, I can put up the list of questions I asked you yet again as an aide memoire for you).

I then challenged you to put up the quote you attribute to me, because your integrity is now in question.

You now post a quote of mine in which you again claim that I say this. It doesn't. Read it again,

AHF can only operate if we act with integrity. You are not doing so.

Your integrity remains in question until you are honest with us.

Which did I write - (1) "the initial crowds "were to some degree staged." or (2) "However, the occasions were without doubt to some degree "staged"?

Well?

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. Bukey is a very useful source and I will continue to use him as I see fit. I am sorry if he doesn't entirely agree with you, but such is life!

Bukey really did write at the top of p.33: “How many tears were shed behind closed doors is impossible to say.”

He also wrote, "In what specific ways the April plebiscite reflected the desires and wishes of the Austrian population must remain a matter of speculation."

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi gebhk,

You post, "Except there were no errors or falsehoods standing in this thread until you put them up so that you can knock them down."

What "errors and falsehoods" did I put up? I put up a couple of explanatory points with which absolutely no one has disagreed. There were no more "errors and falsehoods" after my initial post than there were before it.

Cheers,

Sid.

[George L Gregory]

Hi GLG,

You have now for five times claimed I posted, "the initial crowds "were to some degree staged.".

Four times I told you that I didn't. I actually wrote, "However, the occasions were without doubt to some degree "staged"." Which is true. Furthermore, I gave you multiple examples, none of which you have disputed. (If you now wish to do so, I can put up the list of questions I asked you yet again as an aide memoire for you).

I then challenged you to put up the quote you attribute to me, because your integrity is now in question.

You now post a quote of mine in which you again claim that I say this. It doesn't. Read it again,

AHF can only operate if we act with integrity. You are not doing so.

Your integrity remains in question until you are honest with us.

Which did I write - (1) "the initial crowds "were to some degree staged." or (2) "However, the occasions were without doubt to some degree "staged"?

Well?

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. Bukey is a very useful source and I will continue to use him as I see fit. I am sorry if he doesn't entirely agree with you, but such is life!

Bukey really did write at the top of p.33: “How many tears were shed behind closed doors is impossible to say.”

He also wrote, "In what specific ways the April plebiscite reflected the desires and wishes of the Austrian population must remain a matter of speculation."

Ah, being the typical wind-up merchant you are, you are now trying to argue about semantics. It doesn’t wash. People can read what you posted earlier on in the thread.

So what were “to some degree staged”?

I asked you to clarify what you meant:

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

So, in the post:

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

You agree that the initial crowds weren’t staged (so you do agree with Bukey and me, hehe). So, at what point were things “to some degree staged”?

For nearly a month they staged rallies, canvased voters, and subjected the Austrian populace to spectacular pageantry, dramatic radio broadcasts (for which 20,000 receivers were made available), and a campaign tour by Hitler himself.

Again, you seem to just be agreeing with Bukey and me.

The tiresome back and forth of inane points is caused by you deiberately being vague and argumentative. Are you as such a contrarian in real life? I highly doubt.

Get a grip Guttridge and try and get straight to the point. At the moment you’re just trying to annoy everyone and I suspect that is your motive anyway.

[George L Gregory]

Hi gebhk,

You post, "Except there were no errors or falsehoods standing in this thread until you put them up so that you can knock them down."

What "errors and falsehoods" did I put up? I put up a couple of explanatory points with which absolutely no one has disagreed. There were no more "errors and falsehoods" after my initial post than there were before it.

Cheers,

Sid.

You ignored what the OP asked because you time and time again think that you can just do as you wish. It’s pathetic and sad.

Unless someone is not all there, he or she should quite easily be able to see and acknowledge that the Nazis used such images to their advantage without you having to point it out.

[George L Gregory]

P.S. Bukey is a very useful source and I will continue to use him as I see fit. I am sorry if he doesn't entirely agree with you, but such is life!

Have you even read the book?

Whom are you going to cite and reference to support your claim that opposition to the Anschluss was likely a contributing factor for the arrests after the Anschluss took place?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi GLG,

You have now for five times claimed I posted, "the initial crowds "were to some degree staged.".

Four times I told you that I didn't. I actually wrote, "However, the occasions were without doubt to some degree "staged"." Which is true. (This, incidentally, has already answered your unnecessary question, "So what were “to some degree staged”?)

Furthermore, I gave you multiple examples, none of which you have disputed. (If you now wish to do so, I can put up the list of questions I asked you yet again as an aide memoire for you).

I then challenged you to put up the quote you attribute to me, because your integrity is now in question.

You now post a quote of mine in which you again claim that I say this. It doesn't. Read it again,

AHF can only operate if we act with integrity. You are not doing so.

Your integrity remains in question until you are honest with us.

Which did I write - (1) "the initial crowds "were to some degree staged." or (2) "However, the occasions were without doubt to some degree "staged"?

This is not exactly complex multiple choice. There are only two alternatives.

Well? Which was it?

Cheers,

Sid.

P,S. Yes, I possess Bukey. I bought it during an earlier discussion with ljadw. What is less clear is whether you do? Or are you just reliant on cherry-picking from ljadw and my earlier discussion and/or Googlebooks? You certainly never seem to give page numbers for your quotes. Why is that?

[George L Gregory]

Hi GLG,

You have now for five times claimed I posted, "the initial crowds "were to some degree staged.".

Four times I told you that I didn't. I actually wrote, "However, the occasions were without doubt to some degree "staged"." Which is true. Furthermore, I gave you multiple examples, none of which you have disputed. (If you now wish to do so, I can put up the list of questions I asked you yet again as an aide memoire for you).

I then challenged you to put up the quote you attribute to me, because your integrity is now in question.

You now post a quote of mine in which you again claim that I say this. It doesn't. Read it again,

AHF can only operate if we act with integrity. You are not doing so.

Your integrity remains in question until you are honest with us.

Which did I write - (1) "the initial crowds "were to some degree staged." or (2) "However, the occasions were without doubt to some degree "staged"?

This is not exactly complex multiple choice. There are only two alternatives.

Well? Which was it?

Cheers,

Sid.

P,S. Yes, I possess Bukey. I bought it during an earlier discussion with ljadw. What is less clear is whether you do? Or are you just reliant on cherry-picking from ljadw and my earlier discussion and/or Googlebooks? You certainly never seem to give page numbers for your quotes. Why is that?

Guttridge, you are like a broken record. Are you on the spectrum or something? That may explain why you just keep posting the same things… what the hell are you even on about with regard to rambling on about my integrity being at stake? Lmao. Get a grip.

Which occasions were to some degree staged if you weren’t referring to the initial crowds? Elaborate on what you meant exactly and then we can go from there.

Last page you posted:

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.

viewtopic.php?f=46&t=255608&start=60#p2379591

Do you even know what you are trying to claim??? So are you arguing that the initial crowds were “to some degree staged” and “there was undoubtedly a degree of stage manage of the occasion” or not??? You’ve been caught out lying and then denying it and now you’re trying to claim that you didn’t claim what you did post.

It’s very easy… which occasions were “staged” and with “stage management”??? The initial crowds???? The campaigns leading up to the plebiscite??? Come on, be precise and quit playing games.

I do own the book, but I don’t need to give pages for quotes when it’s on one of my bookshelves and a quick copy and paste of the quote will show that it’s from the book.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi GLG,

Your integrity remains in question until you are honest with us.

Which did I write - (1) "the initial crowds "were to some degree staged." or (2) "However, the occasions were without doubt to some degree "staged"?

This is not exactly complex multiple choice. There are only two alternatives.

Once we have established this satisfactorily, we can move on.

Well? Which was it? (1) or (2)?

This makes it as easy as possible for you to answer, because you have only to tap one key: 1 or 2.

Cheers,

Sid.

[George L Gregory]

Hi GLG,

Your integrity remains in question until you are honest with us.

Which did I write - (1) "the initial crowds "were to some degree staged." or (2) "However, the occasions were without doubt to some degree "staged"?

This is not exactly complex multiple choice. There are only two alternatives.

Once we have established this satisfactorily, we can move on.

Well? Which was it? (1) or (2)?

This makes it as easy as possible for you to answer, because you have only to tap one key: 1 or 2.

Cheers,

Sid.

Jesus Christ. Rinse and repeat. Read my last post and answer the effing question. Be precise about which “occasions” you were referring to that involved alleged stage management and were staged.

You’re trying to avoid answering my question by diverging into a game of semantics. Grow up.

Instead of being so vague and leaving things open to interpretation, why not just be clear about which crowds you were referring to in the first place?

With US???? You should speak on behalf of yourself and no one else.

[George L Gregory]

Guttridge, I hope you’re not thinking that when Hitler spoke to the large crowds at Vienna it was the day when the Anschluss happened - it was not. Hitler spoke in Vienna on 15 March, three days after the Anschluss had taken place. Perhaps that’s why you’re spamming this thread with your relentless BS in red over and over.

That’s why I’ve not bothered to play your little game about my integrity allegedly being on the line.

You have things muddled up. Sort it out and then post again.

[ljadw]

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.

1 When in 1964 60 % of the American voters who were voting ( a lot did not,or were excluded :YES in the US and in all countries,people lost the right to vote ) voted for Johnson ,every one said that the American people did chose Johnson as president,although these 60 % were only a small minority of the American people :only 43 million Americans of a population of 191 million did chose Johnson = 23 %,while 70 % of all Austrians approved the Anschluss . No British government has obtained the approval of 70 % of the British people ,but no one denied their legality .Only 1 on 4 Americans voted for Biden ,no one is arguing that this is a reason why Biden is not a legal president .
Thus your claim that the Austrian people did not approve the Anschluss is meaningless and wrong :elections are always ,in all countries decided by a minority (Austria in 1938 was an exception ).Those who do not vote do not count .
2 The Anschluss meant the arrival of the Wehrmacht ,as Austria became a part of Germany .Thus it was impossible to approve the annexation of Austria by Germany,but to disapprove the arrival of the German army in a part of Germany .The Anschluss was not possible without the arrival of the Wehrmacht .
3 There is NO proof, no proof at all that eligible voters were excluded,because of the danger that they could vote nein .
In fact ,more, yes : MORE Austrians could vote in the Anschluss referendum,than could have voted in the Schuschnigg referendum :in March 1938 thousands of Austrians were in prison for political reasons or had left the country and Schuschnigg had decided that the Austrians who were between 20 and 25 could not vote ,while the new regime gave these people the right to vote .
4 Those who claim ,sitting on their high horse,that the exclusion of 6/8 % of the eligible voters by the German authorities (which was not because they could vote nein ) is a proof that the elections were not legal, are ,wisely,hiding the fact that compared to the number of those who voted in the US elections last year,almost 4 % had lost their voting rights :6,1 million compared to 158 million .During several decades,protestants in Northern Ireland could have several votes,Catholics only one, but no one has said that because of this,the elections were illegal . In Britain,prisoners serving a sentence and members of the Lords can not vote . No one in Britain is saying that because of this ,the elections are illegal .In Belgium,members of the Royal Family have no voting right for parliamentary elections . No one is saying that this means that the elections are illegal .
Austrian Jews lost their voting right (not only for the referendum but also for the Reichstag elections),because they were now inhabitants of Germany and the Nuremberg Laws had taken away the voting right of those the Nazis said were Jews,NOT because they could vote nein, : there is no proof that Baron Rothschild would vote as the communist Bruno Kreisky .The Nazis did not care about how the Jews could vote, but they decided that the Jews had no right to vote even if Jews would vote for the Nazis .
The Czechs in Austria could vote,although there was a danger that they would vote nein ,but they voted yes,at 99 % .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi GLG,

So let us get this clear - Your answer to the question.....

Which did I write - (1) "the initial crowds "were to some degree staged" or (2) "However, the occasions were without doubt to some degree "staged"?

..... is (2) and that I did not write (1)?

I ask for absolute clarity so far lacking in your "replies" because I don't want you peddling such misinformation again.

Cheers,

Sid

[George L Gregory]

Hi GLG,

So let us get this clear - Your answer to the question.....

Which did I write - (1) "the initial crowds "were to some degree staged" or (2) "However, the occasions were without doubt to some degree "staged"?

..... is (2) and that I did not write (1)?

I ask for absolute clarity so far lacking in your "replies" because I don't want you peddling such misinformation again.

Cheers,

Sid

Yawn, yawn, yawn.

You don’t get to set the rules here. But, what people on here do expect is for you to clarify and be clear about what you mean instead of posting your usual vague claims and hogwash relentlessly.

If this all you have to offer now then congratulations on exposing yourself as being incompetent and unable and unwilling to clarify what you posted.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi GLG,

This is a very simple question, requiring a very simple answer from you.

So let us get this clear - Your answer to the question.....

Which did I write - (1) "the initial crowds "were to some degree staged" or (2) "However, the occasions were without doubt to some degree "staged"?

..... is (2) and that I did not write (1)?

I ask for absolute clarity so far lacking in your "replies" because I don't want you peddling such misinformation again.

Once we have a definitive answer from you, I would be happy to offer any clarification you may require as to (2). I can't answer to (1) because I didn't write it.

(1) or (2)?

Cheers,

Sid