Austria proper

[Georg Ebner]

Since 1919 Austria is consisting of a coherent corpus, added artifially by NorthTyrol and Vorarlberg as an addition to the addition. In this vision Vorarlberg would go to SwitzerLand (disputed after WorldWar I), North&South-Tyrol would be an independent BufferState between Italy and Germany (NATO-member). EastTyrol, which was in the early MiddleAges party of Carinthia would remain in Austria, which could look like this:

4 BundesLänder:



20 Kreise (circuits), 5 for each region:


or another variant (with changes in western UpperA. and eastern InnerA./SouthA.):


~100 Bezirke (districts):


or the other variant:

[Georg Ebner]

Demographical and electoral numbers are collected here:

drive.google.com/drive/folders/19Do_q7eTST4nq02zKYE1Uy9GlMB7u-2M?usp=sharing

[🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️]

I thought this was going to be a magnificent irredentist map of all the places where the appropriate forms of greeting are "Grüß Gott!" and "Servus!" – would certainly be a good way of weakening the North German state.

[Georg Ebner]

Oct 15, 2020 16:35:46 GMT 🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️ said:

I thought this was going to be a magnificent irredentist map of all the places where the appropriate forms of greeting are "Grüß Gott!" and "Servus!" – would certainly be a good way of weakening the North German state.

British generals advocated after 1945 cleverly to split Germany into its tribes, but an ignorant idiot in Your FO replied - not more than 80 years after 1866 -, that this wouldn't work as "Germany has not had any tradition of federalism"...

[Peter Wilkinson]

As a matter of interest, why those particular boundaries for "Austria proper"? So far as I can tell, they include Burgenland, which was Hungarian until 1919 even though it had a German-speaking majority, and Salzburg, which was only incorporated into Austria during the Napoleonic Wars and was almost equally connected with Bavaria before that (scarcely surprisingly, seeing that the archdiocese, as distinct from the Erzstift, included most of both Bavaria and Austria). But Tirol, and even much of Vorarlberg, had been Habsburg territory and, so far as I can tell, considered part of the Austrian lands, for centuries before that - Tirol for almost as long as Carinthia. And when Habsburg territories were split between different heirs, Inner Austria and the original Duchy of Austria seem to have been split from one another almost as often as both were split from Tirol and Further Austria.

So your grounds for choosing these boundaries do not appear to be primarily historical. What else do you find important?

[Georg Ebner]

Oct 15, 2020 22:01:23 GMT Peter Wilkinson said:

As a matter of interest, why those particular boundaries for "Austria proper"? So far as I can tell, they include Burgenland, which was Hungarian until 1919 even though it had a German-speaking majority, and Salzburg, which was only incorporated into Austria during the Napoleonic Wars and was almost equally connected with Bavaria before that (scarcely surprisingly, seeing that the archdiocese, as distinct from the Erzstift, included most of both Bavaria and Austria). But Tirol, and even much of Vorarlberg, had been Habsburg territory and, so far as I can tell, considered part of the Austrian lands, for centuries before that - Tirol for almost as long as Carinthia. And when Habsburg territories were split between different heirs, Inner Austria and the original Duchy of Austria seem to have been split from one another almost as often as both were split from Tirol and Further Austria.

So your grounds for choosing these boundaries do not appear to be primarily historical. What else do you find important?

My ConGratulations - You know austrian history very well!
As said, it's, because NorthTyrol is not even really connected with the rest (rail&motor-way run through Bavaria's Rosenheim) and Vorarlberg wasn't at all before the Arlberg-tunnel was built. As a result in energy-supply aso. Tyrol&Vorarlberg are connected with Germany&Italy, while restAustria is a coherent circle around the dead Alpine centre (Vienna-St.Pölten-Steyr-Linz-Wels-Salzburg-Villach-Klagenfurt-Graz-Vienna). And the territory has had ImPacts on the mentality: Perhaps also caused by the Slavic SubStrate the open-minded Tyroleans are rather the opposite to the (in)famously "charmant" Viennese or Carinthians (we in UpperA.&Salzburg being a bridge). Historically they came to Austria because of marriages, so quite coincidentally. And the loose connectionship to rumpA. let them be governed for centuries (as "OberÖsterreich", residence Innsbruck) with lots of autonomy from Vienna.
The 4 regions would have roughly an equal populationNumber, the MeetingPoint of the 3 rural ones would be the ErzBerg, a mountain entirely of IronOre, a nice symbol for unity.

[neilm]

Aug 23, 2020 1:10:49 GMT neilm said:

The dismemberment of Austria-Hungary was an economic disaster. It is sad that it is barely touched on in schools.

[No Offence Alan]

Oct 16, 2020 12:01:17 GMT neilm said:

Aug 23, 2020 1:10:49 GMT neilm said:

The dismemberment of Austria-Hungary was an economic disaster. It is sad that it is barely touched on in schools.

I don't see "Hapsburg History Month" catching on, somehow.

[markgoodair]

Why did the Allies refuse to accept the democratic decision of the voters of Voralaberg to join Switzerland in 1919?

[Georg Ebner]

Oct 17, 2020 3:45:45 GMT markgoodair said:

Why did the Allies refuse to accept the democratic decision of the voters of Voralaberg to join Switzerland in 1919?

That's a good question, whose answer is not entirely clear to historians.
The main factor was, that this referendum caused other regions - Tyrol and Salzburg - to conduct ones on joining Germany and strengthening their enemy was certainly not the WesternEntente's aim. 
Less important factors were, that Vorarlberg was poor and catholic; that Vorarlberg's ChristianSocialParty-leaders (Jodok Fink, Joseph Ender) were absorbed by Vienna in con-creating Austria's constitution and later becoming federal PM.

[slon]

It seems fairly certain the unification of Germany was finaly established by WW1, they lost but the common suffering overcame the very real divisions between the regions.
Are we sure someting similar did not occur in Austria at that time?

[Georg Ebner]

Oct 17, 2020 11:41:51 GMT slon said:

It seems fairly certain the unification of Germany was finaly established by WW1, they lost but the common suffering overcame the very real divisions between the regions.
Are we sure someting similar did not occur in Austria at that time?

Germany won WorldWar I (strategically because of Russia's collapse).
v.BISMARCK always feared - yes, expected - His Reich to fall apart one day. But He and William II became unifying symbols already before 1914. (Just look at the increasingly non-secessionist ElectionResults even in antiPrussian AlsaceLorraine!) But "the unification of Germany was finaly established by WW1" sounds true.

In Austria this was certainly not the case: It was "the republic nobody wanted", the GermanNationalists and SocialDemocrats wanted to join the german republic, the ChristianSocials were unsure (either strenghtening the cath. minority in Germany or creating a catholic Reich or restoring the monarchy or a DanubeFederation).
Nobody advocated an austrian nation except the KPÖ (sometimes before&after the Hitler-Stalin-pact) and E.K.Winter, a holosophical (O.SPANN) "sociologist" without broad appeal.
Only since 1945 (arguably since 1938 with its disappointing colonization of Austria by usually arrogant NorthGermans) an independent StateNation was supported by a majority, not before the 1960ies (as we know from OpinionPolls) most Austrians defined themselves as part of an austrian CultureNation.

[Peter Wilkinson]

Oct 17, 2020 11:33:15 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Oct 17, 2020 3:45:45 GMT markgoodair said:

Why did the Allies refuse to accept the democratic decision of the voters of Voralaberg to join Switzerland in 1919?

That's a good question, whose answer is not entirely clear to historians.
The main factor was, that this referendum caused other regions - Tyrol and Salzburg - to conduct ones on joining Germany and strengthening their enemy was certainly not the WesternEntente's aim. 
Less important factors were, that Vorarlberg was poor and catholic; that Vorarlberg's ChristianSocialParty-leaders (Jodok Fink, Joseph Ender) were absorbed by Vienna in con-creating Austria's constitution and later becoming federal PM.

And it is probably worth adding that there was a fair amount of suspicion among both the Allies and non-German-speaking Swiss that at least some German-speaking Swiss politicians had surreptitiously been helping Germany during the war. This was almost certainly overblown, but not completely without foundation - after all, Lenin had been living in Switzerland until mid-1917, when he left in a sealed train, with the full knowledge of the German government, for Scandinavia, and then back to Petrograd. And, at roughly the same time, the then Swiss foreign minister had to resign in a hurry when, in an apparently separate incident, he was found to have been giving unofficial diplomatic support to a Swiss socialist who was trying to convince Kerensky's government to conclude a separate peace with Germany.

So, many Swiss politicians had good reason to reject any suggestion that Switzerland should acquire a new German-speaking canton - particularly when even some Swiss citizens who might have supported that would not do so when the proposed acquisition was both poor and Catholic. To say nothing of the fact that Italy was looking for excuses to give to other countries for claiming Ticino.

[slon]

Oct 17, 2020 14:18:38 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Oct 17, 2020 11:41:51 GMT slon said:

It seems fairly certain the unification of Germany was finaly established by WW1, they lost but the common suffering overcame the very real divisions between the regions.
Are we sure someting similar did not occur in Austria at that time?

Germany won WorldWar I (strategically because of Russia's collapse).
v.BISMARCK always feared - yes, expected - His Reich to fall apart one day. But He and William II became unifying symbols already before 1914. (Just look at the increasingly non-secessionist ElectionResults even in antiPrussian AlsaceLorraine!) But "the unification of Germany was finaly established by WW1" sounds true.

In Austria this was certainly not the case: It was "the republic nobody wanted", the GermanNationalists and SocialDemocrats wanted to join the german republic, the ChristianSocials were unsure (either strenghtening the cath. minority in Germany or creating a catholic Reich or restoring the monarchy or a DanubeFederation).
Nobody advocated an austrian nation except the KPÖ (sometimes before&after the Hitler-Stalin-pact) and E.K.Winter, a holosophical (O.SPANN) "sociologist" without broad appeal.
Only since 1945 (arguably since 1938 with its disappointing colonization of Austria by usually arrogant NorthGermans) an independent StateNation was supported by a majority, not before the 1960ies (as we know from OpinionPolls) most Austrians defined themselves as part of an austrian CultureNation.

I see what you mean .... just been reading about the mess which was the First Austrian Republic founded 1920.

[Georg Ebner]

Oct 21, 2020 10:16:41 GMT slon said:

Oct 17, 2020 14:18:38 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Germany won WorldWar I (strategically because of Russia's collapse).
v.BISMARCK always feared - yes, expected - His Reich to fall apart one day. But He and William II became unifying symbols already before 1914. (Just look at the increasingly non-secessionist ElectionResults even in antiPrussian AlsaceLorraine!) But "the unification of Germany was finaly established by WW1" sounds true.

In Austria this was certainly not the case: It was "the republic nobody wanted", the GermanNationalists and SocialDemocrats wanted to join the german republic, the ChristianSocials were unsure (either strenghtening the cath. minority in Germany or creating a catholic Reich or restoring the monarchy or a DanubeFederation).
Nobody advocated an austrian nation except the KPÖ (sometimes before&after the Hitler-Stalin-pact) and E.K.Winter, a holosophical (O.SPANN) "sociologist" without broad appeal.
Only since 1945 (arguably since 1938 with its disappointing colonization of Austria by usually arrogant NorthGermans) an independent StateNation was supported by a majority, not before the 1960ies (as we know from OpinionPolls) most Austrians defined themselves as part of an austrian CultureNation.

I see what you mean .... just been reading about the mess which was the First Austrian Republic founded 1920.

Yes, everything was so provisorical and fluid - it's very hard for present-day historians&students to keep this - that, what is normal for us, wasn't then - in mind.
May i ask, what You have been reading?

[slon]

Oct 21, 2020 15:24:13 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Oct 21, 2020 10:16:41 GMT slon said:

I see what you mean .... just been reading about the mess which was the First Austrian Republic founded 1920.

Yes, everything was so provisorical and fluid - it's very hard for present-day historians&students to keep this - that, what is normal for us, wasn't then - in mind.
May i ask, what You have been reading?

Just Wiki about the First Austrian Republic .... the intro is enough

"The First Austrian Republic (German: Republik Österreich) was created after the signing of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye on 10 September 1919—the settlement after the end of World War I which ended the Habsburg rump state of Republic of German-Austria—and ended with the establishment of the Austrofascist Federal State of Austria based upon a dictatorship of Engelbert Dollfuss and the Fatherland's Front in 1934. The Republic's constitution was enacted on 1 October 1920 and amended on 7 December 1929. The republican period was increasingly marked by violent strife between those with left-wing and right-wing views, leading to the July Revolt of 1927 and the Austrian Civil War of 1934. "

So it existed for all of 14 years and during that time had contant division between political parties, never ending financial crisis, and 2 civil wars

[Georg Ebner]

Oct 22, 2020 16:08:19 GMT slon said:

Oct 21, 2020 15:24:13 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Yes, everything was so provisorical and fluid - it's very hard for present-day historians&students to keep this - that, what is normal for us, wasn't then - in mind.
May i ask, what You have been reading?

Just Wiki about the First Austrian Republic .... the intro is enough

"The First Austrian Republic (German: Republik Österreich) was created after the signing of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye on 10 September 1919—the settlement after the end of World War I which ended the Habsburg rump state of Republic of German-Austria—and ended with the establishment of the Austrofascist Federal State of Austria based upon a dictatorship of Engelbert Dollfuss and the Fatherland's Front in 1934. The Republic's constitution was enacted on 1 October 1920 and amended on 7 December 1929. The republican period was increasingly marked by violent strife between those with left-wing and right-wing views, leading to the July Revolt of 1927 and the Austrian Civil War of 1934. "

So it existed for all of 14 years and during that time had contant division between political parties, never ending financial crisis, and 2 civil wars

It's more complicated: 1927 was no "civil war" - left masses stormed&burned the JusticePalace, only few communists had - but that's disputed among historians - an intention for developing more. 1934 was a real one, but basically only in Vienna for few days. Also it's part of the saga ÖVP and SPÖ had after 1945: We must work together, because of our quarrels enabling the Nazis to invade. But realiter the SocialDemocrats had been tacitly supporting the bourgeois cabinets of Republic I (in crucial votes on austerity-policies 1-2 dozens of their MPs being absent...). Grande theatro. A verbal radicalism, usually unfollowed by actions (what demoralized especially the supporters of the self-proclaimed "AustroMarxists" since 1927).
"Never ending financial-crisis" is also not entirely correct: ECONOMICally A. suffered less than France or Switzerland, but finally it was a stagnation for 40 years (1914-1954), what was nerve-racking, but more so during the dictatorship of the 1930ies. FINANCially the SuperInflation was painful, but then at least the public finances recovered (with strong British support, by the way). A problem were the banks: The traditional&private ones tried to hold their positions in the whole exMonarchy - the DanubeMonarchy continued to exist only in the imperialistic plans of these overwhelmingly Jewish bankiers -, what didn't end well due to the deAustrification in these countries (and because of BlackFriday, of course); new banks established by the regions (by antiSemitic politicians against "Jewish Vienna") failed mostly, too.

[slon]

Oct 22, 2020 22:47:28 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Oct 22, 2020 16:08:19 GMT slon said:

Just Wiki about the First Austrian Republic .... the intro is enough

"The First Austrian Republic (German: Republik Österreich) was created after the signing of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye on 10 September 1919—the settlement after the end of World War I which ended the Habsburg rump state of Republic of German-Austria—and ended with the establishment of the Austrofascist Federal State of Austria based upon a dictatorship of Engelbert Dollfuss and the Fatherland's Front in 1934. The Republic's constitution was enacted on 1 October 1920 and amended on 7 December 1929. The republican period was increasingly marked by violent strife between those with left-wing and right-wing views, leading to the July Revolt of 1927 and the Austrian Civil War of 1934. "

So it existed for all of 14 years and during that time had contant division between political parties, never ending financial crisis, and 2 civil wars

It's more complicated: 1927 was no "civil war" - left masses stormed&burned the JusticePalace, only few communists had - but that's disputed among historians - an intention for developing more. 1934 was a real one, but basically only in Vienna for few days. Also it's part of the saga ÖVP and SPÖ had after 1945: We must work together, because of our quarrels enabling the Nazis to invade. But realiter the SocialDemocrats had been tacitly supporting the bourgeois cabinets of Republic I (in crucial votes on austerity-policies 1-2 dozens of their MPs being absent...). Grande theatro. A verbal radicalism, usually unfollowed by actions (what demoralized especially the supporters of the self-proclaimed "AustroMarxists" since 1927).
"Never ending financial-crisis" is also not entirely correct: ECONOMICally A. suffered less than France or Switzerland, but finally it was a stagnation for 40 years (1914-1954), what was nerve-racking, but more so during the dictatorship of the 1930ies. FINANCially the SuperInflation was painful, but then at least the public finances recovered (with strong British support, by the way). A problem were the banks: The traditional&private ones tried to hold their positions in the whole exMonarchy - the DanubeMonarchy continued to exist only in the imperialistic plans of these overwhelmingly Jewish bankiers -, what didn't end well due to the deAustrification in these countries (and because of BlackFriday, of course); new banks established by the regions (by antiSemitic politicians against "Jewish Vienna") failed mostly, too.

I tend to the view that the economy is the prime factor, if it is working OK then people are happy, if not then watch out.

The creation of Austrian republic was doomed from the start.

The economics could not work, almost all the richer agricultural and industrial regions had been removed leaving little income, but a massive administrative and financial centre in Vienna.

So you have all the expense and luxury of a bourgeois bureaucracy designed to run a huge empire sitting on top of a tiny agricucture based workforce.

I suppose much of the dismemberment the old Austro-Hungarian Empire following the end of WW1 had a similar outcome ... the creation of states which were simply not economically viable, and at the same time had huge internal nationalistic/tribal differences.

[Georg Ebner]

Oct 23, 2020 10:16:38 GMT slon said:

Oct 22, 2020 22:47:28 GMT Georg Ebner said:

It's more complicated: 1927 was no "civil war" - left masses stormed&burned the JusticePalace, only few communists had - but that's disputed among historians - an intention for developing more. 1934 was a real one, but basically only in Vienna for few days. Also it's part of the saga ÖVP and SPÖ had after 1945: We must work together, because of our quarrels enabling the Nazis to invade. But realiter the SocialDemocrats had been tacitly supporting the bourgeois cabinets of Republic I (in crucial votes on austerity-policies 1-2 dozens of their MPs being absent...). Grande theatro. A verbal radicalism, usually unfollowed by actions (what demoralized especially the supporters of the self-proclaimed "AustroMarxists" since 1927).
"Never ending financial-crisis" is also not entirely correct: ECONOMICally A. suffered less than France or Switzerland, but finally it was a stagnation for 40 years (1914-1954), what was nerve-racking, but more so during the dictatorship of the 1930ies. FINANCially the SuperInflation was painful, but then at least the public finances recovered (with strong British support, by the way). A problem were the banks: The traditional&private ones tried to hold their positions in the whole exMonarchy - the DanubeMonarchy continued to exist only in the imperialistic plans of these overwhelmingly Jewish bankiers -, what didn't end well due to the deAustrification in these countries (and because of BlackFriday, of course); new banks established by the regions (by antiSemitic politicians against "Jewish Vienna") failed mostly, too.

I tend to the view that the economy is the prime factor, if it is working OK then people are happy, if not then watch out.

The creation of Austrian republic was doomed from the start.

The economics could not work, almost all the richer agricultural and industrial regions had been removed leaving little income, but a massive administrative and financial centre in Vienna.

So you have all the expense and luxury of a bourgeois bureaucracy designed to run a huge empire sitting on top of a tiny agricucture based workforce.

I suppose much of the dismemberment the old Austro-Hungarian Empire following the end of WW1 had a similar outcome ... the creation of states which were simply not economically viable, and at the same time had huge internal nationalistic/tribal differences.

Since the autumn of the middle ages and finally since ~1789 bourgeoisie&economy have become prevalent, but this was not the case in the aristocratic eras. The rats try to encapsulate us in the modern dystopia by claiming, that it was never ever better before - but this is a lie!
For Austria's economical situation after 1918 You are generally right, but A. had also certain hopes now and again: the end of inflation, balanced budgets, strong currency ("AlpenDollar"), rise of wood/paper-industry and a far more effective agriculture (which had been neglected during the monarchy in order to enable more imports of wheat/... from Hungary).

[slon]

Oct 23, 2020 23:27:22 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Oct 23, 2020 10:16:38 GMT slon said:

I tend to the view that the economy is the prime factor, if it is working OK then people are happy, if not then watch out.

The creation of Austrian republic was doomed from the start.

The economics could not work, almost all the richer agricultural and industrial regions had been removed leaving little income, but a massive administrative and financial centre in Vienna.

So you have all the expense and luxury of a bourgeois bureaucracy designed to run a huge empire sitting on top of a tiny agricucture based workforce.

I suppose much of the dismemberment the old Austro-Hungarian Empire following the end of WW1 had a similar outcome ... the creation of states which were simply not economically viable, and at the same time had huge internal nationalistic/tribal differences.

Since the autumn of the middle ages and finally since ~1789 bourgeoisie&economy have become prevalent, but this was not the case in the aristocratic eras. The rats try to encapsulate us in the modern dystopia by claiming, that it was never ever better before - but this is a lie!
For Austria's economical situation after 1918 You are generally right, but A. had also certain hopes now and again: the end of inflation, balanced budgets, strong currency ("AlpenDollar"), rise of wood/paper-industry and a far more effective agriculture (which had been neglected during the monarchy in order to enable more imports of wheat/... from Hungary).

By aristocratic do you mean feudalism?