If you feel relieved, I can tell you that I dont know a single person that is proud to be Austrian because of WWII. Not even WWI.

In fact if you can critizise something its that WWII was simply skipped and Austrias history was considered as long and glorious, with some 30 years miraculously missing ...

Don't you think it had something to do with the fact that Austria was absorbed, albeit more or less voluntairily, into Germany? I mean Austria wasn't on par with Germany, not a constituent part of the third reich. Furthermore, the re-establishment of a very small, and rather insignificant, powerless country that was almost unrecognizable to the citizens, perhaps also played a role in the construction of a modern national identity. I know that if I was Austrian, I would be proud of the imperial pre-1914 history; I wouldn't see it a catastrophical, historical Other like the Germans would see the third reich.

First one should make something clear. Schuschnig wanted to make a referendum among the Austrians if the country should voluntarely join the 3rd Reich. It would be interesting to know why Hitler had such a hectic to prevent this referendum and invaded first. Anyway, the "referendum" he made afterwards was not much more than a bad joke. I mean how reliable is a referendum that has a 99% turnout for yes.

Anyway, I do not know how keen Austrians were to become part of the 3rd Reich. But what I know for sure is that they did not have much resentiments against it.

The first Republic was not a nation state. Not really, after all it was the intermediate, where a former empire or better the pittifull rest of it had to look for a new identity. And not to forget a huge industry once determined to deliver to a 50 million people empire had to adopt to not even 8 million. It was split up between three forces. Nazis, Socialdemocrats and Christian social (that became the Austro fascists). While the Socialists have been the largest party constantly as long as there were fair elections, it was the Christian social (=conservatives/fascists) that allways governed in some coalitions until they made an end to the democracy. The Austrian Nazi movement came into existance after Austria has been allready become a fascist state and was quite soon made illegal, shortly afterwards also the Social democrats.

From these three political movements the Austro fascists were the only ones but therefore even the more fostering the idea of a souvereign Austrian nation. In the midth there Socialdemocrats who principally supported a unification with Germany, but for sure not under Nazi rule. And on the other side the "illegals", the Austrian Nazis, who did all they could for an Anschluss. They went as far as assassinating the Austrian chancellor, or better said dictator Dollfuß.

Given that situation it would be a questionable claim to say that Austrians were keen on getting "heim ins Reich". I would say, one third of them were in fact, half of them, though that as one can not change it anyway, lets give it a trial and even concentrated on the positive sides like the prospect of falling unemployment and ecnomic uprise. With the rest opposing strongly but shutting up because the first Austrian "virtue" is to save ones own ass.


So much for the Anschluss. After it has become a fact, Austrians adopted quite fast and its hard to admit but it turned out that we were the "better" Nazis. With the most cruel inhumane and asocial Nazi officials being Austrians. Its a shame we have to live with.
What are you talking about?
Austria is not more "insignificant" than Sweden is.
Concerning international cooperation Austria is even quite well known as conference town. Austria still has its world class things, like eg the Staatsoper that can claim easily to be one of the worlds most important opera houses for example. Austria belongs tot he most wealthy nations in the world (like Sweden too). I can not see why one should not be able to be proud at a country, just because it has not more than 8 million inhabitants.

Citizenship and many other social characteristics happen by default, so why should you be ashamed of the actions by other countrymen? There's no need to be ashamed of that. The Americans, for example, are clearly proud of their country although it is the result of organized, authoritative massmurder and endless expansion. But it's all history now. I would never hold any American responsible for his ancestors actions; that would be foolish. Similarly, I would never dream of judging an Austrian or a German for the actions of Hitler.


Austria had to settle for a small state option, giving up any pretence to even a regional role. That was my point.

I am not ashamed of my country or do the best to talk it as bad as possible. After all I am not German

I disagree slightly with parts of your post above. Noone that did not live back than is responsible for the crime his fathers or grandfathers committed back than. Exceptional crimes however bring the obligation to remind them exceptionally long.

Nie wieder Faschismus! Should be no empty phrase. But for preventing it to happen again, you also have to hold the remembrance of its results alive. That has pretty less todo with judging in Austrian for Hitler.

Its not the fault of anyone living today and not back than those things happened. But its the responsability of all of us that they do not happen again. Therefore I would also encourage Americans to have a realistic views on the crimes their anchestors committed too.

Ignoring history like some do, is not really a good thing IMHO. History just too easily takes revenge for that otherwise.
Well, ehm, yes.... and?
What are you aiming at with this statement?

After all it was the emperor who pretty much fucked it up himself (Franz Josef). If he would have shown just a little more respect and understanding for the ideas and the person of his eldest son, history might have taken another course... and WW1 would have started due to a completely other reason and who knows on which side any of the players would have been than....

I think the Austrian (and the German) state of today is antithetical to fascism, and for that reason history isn't ignored. For example, the Austrian constitution, or at least some legislation, probably speak of equal rights for anyone regardless of race, sex, and so on. But all formal democratic institutions are also matched by equally salient democratic informal institutions. I refuse to believe that any Nazi party could ever legally gain influence in a real democracy; that is, North of the Alps, North of the Pyranees, and West of the Oder.

My remark about Austria's allegded insignificance wasn't meant in harm. I merely assumed that whilst the (West)Germans were allowed to retain some influence in world politics, Austria definitive gave up its great power status in 1918, and that could have had some effect on the identity construction so that accepting so much guilt as the Germans was unacceptable. Again this is speculation, but collective self-esteem is a key national interest for any state, but what is defined as such obviously is subjective. For example, the Russians accepted a lot of things after the disintegration of the USSR, but they refused to accept endless demands from the West and their former dependencies.

Its not just about reemerging of the NSDAP. Somewho zombies alive or stuff like this. Its about the reemerge of violent hate and intolerance, combined with easy answers. No state can be totally safe from becoming a dictatorship. If you know history, its quite obvious that it does not need that much for the abandonment of democracy. No constitution can save you from that danger. It just can reduce it a bit. Its the people who have to defend democracy day by day. As soon as they stop demanding it, its just a matter of time until it breaks apart. And what better motivation to demand democracy in combination with the rule of law under the principles of the enlightment could exist than history itself?

Thats a creative theory, but I really dont think it is appropriate. No, Austrians for sure did not think that they wont accept the guilt and responsibility if they dont get some empire or at least a certain power back again. No, that does not make much sense in my eyes. And as far as I know the time of WWII and accepting the responsability and the fact that we were not just "victims" is in no way connected with the downfall of the Austrian empire decades before.

WRT insignificance. I would like to disagree on this one too. Under the Kreisky era Austria was quite the opposite of insignificant in the international diplomacy. Especially Vienna was a center of espionage, the secound place beneath Berlin where West and East met together or tried to spy each other out. With the slight difference that Austria did not need to be split up for that.
Austria was a leading factor in the international accepting of the PLO as political force in the Palestinian territories. It managed to become a UN-city, beneath New York and Geneva. Furthermore Vienna allways has been a hotspot being essential for everyone involved in oil trade, as its the home town of the OPEC.

Germany at the opposite, was hiding itself. The sole thing they did in foreign politics was fostering the European integration. That was a good thing, but Germany prefered to allways keep the cover behind France. Even the reunification was something Germany hardly dared at first. Allthough principally it would be not much of an business for anyone outside of the former DDR and BRD.


Anyway. The reason why Austrians did not accept to wear the guilt was not that the thought they got not enough power back or something like that for doing so, but simply because it was so much more comfortable to skip the issue WWII and concentrate on rebuilding the Austrian nation that was in ashes.
Btw I would say, the 10 years of the allied occupation found more place in the collective remembrance of the Austrians than the 7 years of "being Reichsdeutsche".

Ok, as said, I do not know much about Austria's post-1945 history apart from this and that. I agree that the reemerge of violent hate and intolerance, combined with easy answers is a threat, not only in Austria, but in most of Western Europe. I do, however, not see this threat constituted by a marginalized neo-fascist segment. Rather I see the spread of radical Islam as the real threat.

That would be another issue. But I would say, radical Islam is just one possible issue. The radical counter reaction btw could be a far larger problem. Those counter reactions dont have to be of religous nature. It could be plain xenophoby too. You know nothing is easier to spread than xenophoby mixed together with limited real incidents and painting the devil on the wall...