Talk:Austrian Civil War

Untitled

Improvements very welcome

Especially creation of internal links to other articles

Tidying up / consolidation of all the different articles on the First Republic would be necessary. For instance, I have seen that there is a (very short) article on the same subject under the heading 'February Uprising'. I believe 'Austrian Civil War' is a more descriptive term, but one could of course mention that '(Austrian?) February Uprising' is a term also commonly used.

Comments on revisions as of 8 Sep 2005

This is the original author, once more. (maybe I should get an account to make things easier) Thanks for all the interest in the article and the concerted effort to improve it. I am especially thankful to Martg76 who took on the (always precarious) task of merging two pieces of writing.

As for my own latest changes (8 Sep 2005),

Austria Republic -> Austrian state

First of all a grammar thing, of course. But I also changed Republic to state, because we are talking about the times of Austrofacism here. "State" therefore seems to me to be the most neutral term. Cf. also the very last paragraph of the article which addresses precisely this issue.

Staendestaat -> Staendestaat

I think Staendestaat and Austrofacism can really be used interchangeably, so Staendestaat should probably redirect to Austrofacism (independently of this article). I will try to implement this.

deletion of 'ironically' in last paragraph

Ironic in the light of what? Since the conservative reasoning for keeping the portrait is outlined in the first part of the sentence, the result is no longer ironic. This has nothing to do with an endorsement of the stated position but merely with the internal coherence of the sentence.

---

Finally, I am unhappy with the internal link to 'Proporz'. Not because it is irrelevant, but because I am not very happy with the 'Proporz' article as such. However, I decided to keep the link and maybe spend some time working on improving the 'Proporz' article

Hi! Yes, please do get an account. I think this is a pretty good article. Also, please don't remove relevant links (such as Proporz, even if the article is bad. BTW, you can sign your comments here on the talk page by making four tildes. Martg76 21:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

In the first paragraph it refers to conservatives as "fascists", a term meaning a person or group of people who won't allow others to think differently. The referring to conservatives as this is inaccurate, as socialists can just as easily be fascists. Hitler was a fascist, Osama Bin Laden is a fascist. But Christians in Austria cannot be referred to as fascists, no group can. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rurounigoku78 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Dollfuß was definitely facist. Today´s "People´s Paty" actually took another name after World War 2 because they didn´t want to be associated with the old "Christian Democrats", who had turned into a facist party and installed the so-called "Staendestaat". You can trust me, I´m Austrian! --Mike F (German Wikipedia)

Schekuli 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is this - before the civil war, the conservatives were a force working within the constitutional framework of the first republic; the civil war marks the exact boundary when they turned from a conservative camp into a fascist regime.

So how to refer to the grouping in an article on the exact time period when the change happened? As the original author of the article (I wasn't yet registered back then, if you're wondering about the IP address), I wrote conservative, since it seemed to me to be a less partisan term. However, I can see why some people would prefer fascist.

I now changed the passage under discussion to the linguistically slightly awkward, but possibly most accurate formulation of conservative-fascist. I hope this solves the issue of neutrality. If I do not read anything to the contrary over the next month or so I will take the liberty to remove the POV-check tag from the article as well.
Schekuli 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No dissenting opinions having been posted over the last 1.5 months, I will now proceed to delete the POV-check tag from the article. Schekuli 21:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think austrofascism (clerical fascism is the most correct term. --Oddeivind 10:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Alot of this article is written from the view point that both the conservatives were to blame for everything that happened and that Fascism is inheritly bad and all fascists along with it. Fascism is not dictatorship and it is not Nazism, it is a wide political ideology that took a quite different shape in each country, Austrofascism is what this article deals with, and they are not Nazis, the fact that the nazis went out of their way to kill them ought to make that clear. There is almost no neutrality in this article and changing a couple words wont change that, its written with the view point as the socialists as innocent victims, it was a civil war and there was fighting on both sides, dont forget it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.241.217 (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Dolfuss

Is it Dolfuss or Dolfuß? I am a native Anglophone with only a limited knowledge of German and a can see either being correct, but not in the same article and particulaly not in thr same paragraph. Since this is an English-language article in the English-language Wikipedia, I would suggest and prefer Dolfuss, but am open-minded, even though many English speakers are unaware that "ß" = "ss". As I said, either is correct but inconsistency within the article is NOT. 75.201.62.147 (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just fixed. --Helium4 (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Communists

Communists = members of the Austrian Communist Party / Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) should be mentioned, and not neglected.

Witness, activist and researcher has been Peter Kammerstätter (1911-1993) from Linz. Former social democrat, then, since 1933, communist. His main relief fills 26 m of shelf in the Archive of the city of Linz.

KPOE has been outlawed by 1933 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommunistische_Partei_Österreichs --Helium4 (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Mural in Coit Tower, San Francisco

The mural "library" (better readable picture: File:Coit Tower Mural- Library (2701780386).jpg) of Bernard Zakheim in Coit Tower shows on its upmost, opened newspaper the headline "THOUSAND SLAUGHTERED IN AUSTRIA" together with the publising date "February 12th, 1934" (upper right corner), a clear reference to the start of the Austrian Civil War. (Moved me, from Linz, a lot, when I read it about in 1981, on site.) --Helium4 (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Change of name.  ?.

The so-called "Austrian Civil War" lasted, by most definitions, for less than a week. Calling it the "Austrian Civil War" is not unique to Wikipedia, but there are other names also widely used which are closer to what (I suggest) the typical wiki-reader would understand from what happened. How about "February Uprising (Austria)" or "Austrian uprising (February 1934)"?

For US readers interested in history "Civil War" brings to mind the Union's first civil war of the industrial age. More than a million(?) died. But no one really knows how many more. (Let us please avoid the endless discussion as to whether the unpleasantnesses involving George Washington were really a first American civil war rewritten by the winners as, in retrospect, a liberation struggle. Please let us avoid that.)

For UK readers, historians - especially Scots and Irish historians - may again argue over whether "English Civil War" really cuts the mustard as an accurate definition. But a very large number of people died unnaturally young under horrible circumstances. Almost certainly more than 100,000 and maybe >200,000 depending on who's counting and whether you include Scotland and Ireland.

Both the "US Civil War" and the "English Civil War" lasted for a number of years and involved slaughter in a huge scale. The violence on the streets of Vienna and one or two other cities in the eastern part of Austria in February 1934 was brutal. Several hundred died and more than a thousand were arrested. But it lasted a matter of days. The scale of the thing is simply not comparable with what US and UK readers (and those in other continents who have learned - willingly and/or otherwise - about the history of England and the US) think of as a civil war. And, for that matter, something of a trifle compared to the horrors inflicted on Austria after 1938.

Does anyone else have thoughts to share on this, please? And thank you Charles01 (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)