Talk:Anschluss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Anschluss is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 21, 2005.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Version 0.5      (Rated C-Class)
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated C-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
WikiProject Austria (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject International relations (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Does anyone agree that this article is no longer up to FA standards?[edit]

It is under-cited throughout, and many quotations and opinions lack sources (the text is also rather confusing at places). I have done some copy-editing, but I have neither the time nor the knowledge or skill to provide the missing sources. If someone else does not do it, it will probably have to go to FAR—actually, it may have to anyway, considering that the last formal review of the article took place more than four years ago. I do hope that it will be improved rather than de-listed, as the subject is an important one. Waltham, The Duke of 02:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Also, some of the sources used are tertiary sources rather than secondary. I don't think the article meets the current sourcing standards of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. —mattisse (Talk) 17:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not even close to meeting standards of a featured article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is appalling. It's blatently pro-Nazi, not anywhere close to NPOV. Total rewrite required. "Austria part of the German Reich for 900 years"??? Gimme a break - wars between Austria and Prussia are a staple of European history. 87.194.44.55 (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about pro-Nazi, but it sure does have an agenda... Hitler wasn't born with German nationality because he wasn't German, he was Austrian. Both sides of his family have deep roots in Austria, father coming from Vienna, and his mother from close to the Czech border. They is so poorly written... "The rise of the Nazis led by Adolf Hitler to power in the Weimar Republic initially caused the Austrian government to withdraw from such economic ties. Hitler, an Austrian German by birth,[11] (Hitler was of German blood, but not of German nationality since he had been born in the Austro-Hungarian empire)[12] picked up his patriotic German nationalist ideas whilst serving in the German army during WWI. In accordance to this one of the Nazi's ideologies was to re-unite all Germans either born or living outside of the Reich in order to create an "all German Reich". From the early beginning of his leadership in the Nazi Party, Hitler had publicly stated in his 1924 autobiography (Mein Kampf) that he would create a union between his birth country and Germany, by any means possible ("German-Austria must be restored to the great German Motherland." "People of the same blood should be in the same Reich.").[13]"207.38.210.117 (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Improve it please, rather than deleting. --John (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Major history errors in the "German troops march into Austria"[edit]

When Hitler marched into Austria, one half of the people of Austria either despised the Nazi invasion or just left to other countries. The other half, which were the people who threw the flowers, rejoiced obviously. Part of Hitler's propaganda was to take pictures of the flower entrence only and silencing the fact that most of Austria hated the Nazi invasion. Somebody re write the paragraph, I'm a AP US student and this just looks stupid as a supposedly "featured" page becuasae the source of this section is literally rooted in old Nazi propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

People like you are why American schools are ridiculed. Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jros83 (talkcontribs) 19:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
In fact, there is a lot of truth in that. The regime would not obviously broadcast dissent, and TBH if you were sensible, you became a card carrying member of the party, and you waved the flowers and flags if you knew what was good for you. My Mother was there until after the war...Lance Tyrell 2.125.67.39 (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

FA review and revision[edit]

Indeed, as the AP history student commented above, this article is not up to current FA standards, and the article require some major "reworking". Initially I thought I would have the time to do it, but this won't be happening on my schedule for a month or more.

Tasks[edit]

  1. decent English map
  2. Review of sources for NPOV
  3. Overhaul to reflect current literature
  4. Stricter focus of content on the Anschluss, with context of the broader Austrian issues, but only for the sake of context.
  5. Citing practices more in line with current standards for the Encyclopedia

I'm sure there are other issues, but these are the ones I saw immediately.Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

  1. decent English map. I like the map and I see much work has been done on it over the yeas, but oddly it remains w/o an English version. The legend especially should be translated. 173.210.125.42 (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverting, wtf?[edit]

Austria had been part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation with the House of Habsburg as the ruling family from 1440 until it was dissolved after the Napoleonic wars in 1806, Austria was then inside the German Confederation which was formed in 1815 until the German war in 1866 which was forwarded by the Prussian chancellor Otto Von Bismark and seen the military successful defeat from the Prussians to the Austrians and consequently excluded Austria from Germany.[5] The Austrian Empire then joined Hungary and formed the Austrian Hungarian Empire in 1867, and "Germany" as a unified nation-state was created in 1871 as the German Empire[6]. After WWI Austria used the name German Austria in hope of joining the new-German Republic[7] But since the Treaty of Versailles strictly forbid the name and the union between the two countries it therefore remained separate.[8] The creation of the Republic of Austria was created and lasted from 1919 until 1934, when the Federal State of Austria was created which only lasted until the Anschluss took place.

Keep it like that it makes perfect sense.--14Adrian (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the Anschluss, that took place in 1938. It's not about 1440 or 1815. Or is what you're doing trying to justify the Anschluss? Well, that would be pov, and you should please refrain from doing so. Btw, it's interesting that your neither mentioning the creation of the Archduchy of Austria, nor the creation of the Austrian Empire, but that would be another topic. --Catgut (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Lack of the Wilson Doctrine[edit]

Since the Treaty of Versailles and st Germain is mentioned, I think it would be fair to also mention what Woodrow Wilson stated in his speech in January 1918, known as "the Wilson doctrine" or the 14 points. These 14 points were the terms for peace that the American president demanded. No more, no less. And this did also general Erich Ludendorff accept, when he for the first time recommended that Germany should search for peace, since "Germany wasn't able to defeat her enemies in the west". Notable about the 14 points is the general idea of "one people - one nation". It worked for Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary (possible, many Hungarians were living in Transsylvania, which went to Rumania). And the Slovaks did already want a nation of their own, I belive. What the people whithin the new Yugoslavia ment in 1919 is a subject of it's own. And I leave that one for others. But within the new Austria there was a vast majority for an "Anschluss", and the Wilson Doctrine doesn't state anything specific concerning a unification between (the new) Austria and Germany. President Wilson got ill at Versailles, which opened the field entirely for French Georges Clemenceau. And hence the Treaty of Versailles forbids a unification. But Germany had actually laid down their weapons in belief that the peace would be "fair enough". If the war had continued, further millions of soldiers on both sides would have been killed. And without a certain knowlidge of the outcome. Remember that the only part of the entire war that was fought on German soil (as of 1914) was the Russian atthempt to conquer East Prussia in August 1914 . And that ended in a disaster for Russia. (a very brief French capture of Mülhausen/Mulhouse around the same time involved no fight) And by 11.November 1918 still no foregin soldier stood on German soil as of 1914 borders. If Germany had got a more decent peace treaty (including an "Anschluss", provided a referendum majority support) the road to Nazism and the next war had not been laid. I think some of this ought to be mentioned in the article, not just references to the treaties mentioned. Boeing720 (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Lack of the Wilson Doctrine[edit]

Since the Treaty of Versailles and st Germain is mentioned, I think it would be fair to also mention what Woodrow Wilson stated in his speech in January 1918, known as "the Wilson doctrine" or the 14 points. These 14 points were the terms for peace that the American president demanded. No more, no less. And this did also general Erich Ludendorff accept, when he for the first time recommended that Germany should search for peace, since "Germany wasn't able to defeat her enemies in the west". Notable about the 14 points is the general idea of "one people - one nation". It worked for Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary (possible, many Hungarians were living in Transsylvania, which went to Rumania). And the Slovaks did already want a nation of their own, I belive. What the people whithin the new Yugoslavia ment in 1919 is a subject of it's own. And I leave that one for others. But within the new Austria there was a vast majority for an "Anschluss", and the Wilson Doctrine doesn't state anything specific concerning a unification between (the new) Austria and Germany. President Wilson got ill at Versailles, which opened the field entirely for French Georges Clemenceau. And hence the Treaty of Versailles forbids a unification. But Germany had actually laid down their weapons in belief that the peace would be "fair enough". If the war had continued, further millions of soldiers on both sides would have been killed. And without a certain knowlidge of the outcome. Remember that the only part of the entire war that was fought on German soil (as of 1914) was the Russian atthempt to conquer East Prussia in August 1914 . And that ended in a disaster for Russia. (a very brief French capture of Mülhausen/Mulhouse around the same time involved no fight) And by 11.November 1918 still no foregin soldier stood on German soil as of 1914 borders. If Germany had got a more decent peace treaty (including an "Anschluss", provided a referendum majority support) the road to Nazism and the next war had not been laid. I think some of this ought to be mentioned in the article, not just references to the treaties mentioned. Boeing720 (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC) One of the 14 points states "The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development" But i fail to see that this forbids a unification between the new Austria and Germany.Boeing720 (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

First victim theory[edit]

I was in Vienna at the time of the 50th anniversary of the restoration of Austrian autonomy and saw an large exhibit on modern Austrian history at the Belvedere museum. The section on the 'first victim" theory included a 1944 document from the US National Archives that revealed that propaganda planners were discussing using that for a campaign to encourage Austrian surrender.

I do not have any other references for this and hence am not adding it to the main article, but perhaps someone else can find it. 74.96.75.248 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)