Where did I state Austria-Hungary was part of Germany or the HRR or any other form of German state?
I know I'm not nuanced. It's one sentence and I was tired.
However, I'm pretty sure the regime was generally supported & never really contested in a way more significant than the resistence within Germany itself.
Austria - Anschluss, WWII, Nazis: Though the Austrian crisis had taken him unaware, Hitler acted with energy and speed. Mussolini’s neutrality was assured, there was a ministerial crisis in France, and the British government had made it known for some time that it would not oppose the union of...
www.britannica.com
However, both of you are ignoring my point though:
How is refering to complicated historical questions in a debate about how to tackle/react to Putin in any way relevant? How is it not simplistic? It's a weak argument.
How can you justify/propose actions for our modern leaders referring to the Anschluss or Sudetenland? Two entirely different cases, both generally peaceful & without guns fired. That's what
@ClausThomsen original post was about.
You didn't, however you meant speaking German and it came across as if this was some intrinsic link that made the area some united Germanic culture.
This is where I felt awkward - ask those in the Republic of Ireland if they're tied to England or in favour of unification due to their shared language.
Maybe I was wrong at that point, so I'll apologise if I did. How much the Austrian people agreed with Anschluss has been questioned, including in Austria.
I won't go into too much detail here (I can later if you wish), but a few points that probably should be researched or discussed when considering it are:
Politically, the far-right Austrian Vaterländische Front (often called the Austrian Nazis) under von Schuschnigg didn't even want Anschluss and protested against it.
The rest of political spectrum didn't want it either. While that's not saying that links between Austria and Germany weren't present, unification wasn't prominent.
A post-Anschluss plebiscite asking if they wanted unification is often used as suggesting it was a key belief in the population, but you need to look deeper.
Nearly 10% of the voting population was rounded up and imprisoned, including in concentration camps. Importantly, prominent politicians were included here.
I bet you'll not be surprised that it included the gypsies, Jews, intellectuals and from the clergy. The vote wasn't secret and promoting non-unification was banned.
A fair few thousand troops, with the SS, were at polling stations where the question and template even pushed towards 'agreeing' with unification.
So are people surprised they got close to 100%? Austrian state files and even reports from the Gestapo (I think it was Kaltenbrunner) suggested it wasn't prominent.
Some of the files even said it was as low as 35%. Once the state was taken over, with the likes of Globocnik and Eigruber in power, what were the public to do?
It's crass to say their lack of resistance correlates with support of the regime as ultimately they were a country under occupation and harsh state terror.
There was resistance too. Therefore, why there were many Austrians who did participate in the war, including the holocaust, it's unproven that many agreed.
But anyway, back to why the Anschluss and Sudetenland were mentioned. While I agree they're not direct comparisons and shouldn't be overstated...
... we can relate to them. We can learn from them. We have a dictator with expansionist views using token evidence for a requirement to 'protect' citizens.
We have use of a familiar language and culture. We have the use of 'political evidence' which is suspect at best. We have troops moving in to guarantee it.
We have a situation where there isn't clear and evident political consensus. How did that end up for Austria and the Sudetenland? It's not particularly pretty.
Seeing similarities here isn't unjustified, and it's worrying. Anschluss was peaceful, but why didn't Hitler wait for the original vote to go through? Hmmm.