Talk:Austria within Nazi Germany

oops

I forgot to log in, but the translation was definitely mine... sorry--VeronikaMM (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I’ve added a reference to Keynsian economics. What the British economist Keynes wrote is relevant here.Barbara Shack (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Further additions

I’ve added material from the German Wikipedia article, Juliputsch. The German text refers to that article.Barbara Shack (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Anhaltelager explains imprisonnment without trial.Barbara Shack (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I’ve added a small amount from the German Wikipedia articles, Staatsrat (Österreich) & Juliabkommen. This shows that the Staatsrat was a Legislative Council.Barbara Shack (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

as long as we are translating the article we should stick to the original. Once we are done I think it makes sense adding stuff from other articles, but it makes it very difficult to proofread for those who agree to do the job.--VeronikaMM (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Category? References? Length?

I find it somehow hard to understand what this article might have to do with Vergangenheitsbewältigung. Isn't Vergangenheitsbewältigung about Germany and some other countries coming to terms with their Nazi past? I've also taken a look at the German article which seems to be quite long and, correct me if I'm wrong, unfortunately rather unreferenced. I mean there are only like 17 footnotes... How are you translators going to handle this? It could be become a problem leading to someone inserting this: In the introduction to the article we learn that the Nazi reign reign in Austria lasted from 1938 to spring 1945. Yet the first chapters extensively describe the prewar or rather post-war situation after Austria-Hungary had ended and Austria had become an independent republic in 1918. Again I may be wrong, but shouldn't the article rather focus on its actual topic? My impression is that the article wanders from the subject. Maybe some parts could be included elsewhere. There are the following articles: First Austrian Republic, Austrofascism, Anschluss. I must say I wouldn't like the idea of having the exact same or similar content partially repeated with slight differences in ultimately four articles. This would be sort of ridiculous, especially given the fact that up to now there is not a single article extensively depicting Austrian history after WWII. Sorry for bothering you, maybe you're planning to do the translation first, deciding about how to proceed later on. I just thought it would be fair to voice my concerns in a timely manner so that you may consider them. --Catgut (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you for your concern. I understand what you mean. I do have actually a lot of reference (a lot of it is in German, unfortunately) in book form. The article is not ONLY dealing with Austria being part of the Nazi regime, but the sections that are in the course of being translated, also explain to a certain degree how Austria reacted to National Socialism in Germany and groups evolving in the country. If you have an idea how to explain such things without including all that information into the article I am very willing to cut shorter once we are done with the translation. Most of the points included are rather important to understand how things could take its course...

To the category Vergangenheitsbewältigung: It doesn't only mean to come to terms with the Nazi past, but also to lay open the facts and stop trying to hide things that have happened. To a big part in Austria that also means leaving the victim role behind. I think as an Austrian I can see the problems of that every day, and that's why I decided to start with the translation with this article, because I know of a lot of people with Austrian ancestry living abroad who never really found out about those details, which is one of the main reason, why I think there is a point of having this long article...--VeronikaMM (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Translation

I know this might not be the perfect place to add this, but whoever wants to join in translating this article, I think it only makes sense if one person is working on one section at a time, otherwise it gets really confusing. It is a very long article and there is plenty to be translated, so please always start out with a new (sub-)section once you are done with one, not with one, that someone has already started with. I think it also gives a much better flow in reading a section at a time. I know things are going to edited again and again, but several people working on the same part usually doesn't work out too well... Thanks--VeronikaMM (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Adolf Hitler und sein Weg zu Großdeutschland"

This is the title of a series of over 200 photographs produced in 1938, distributed in Austria as a premium with packs of cigarettes shortly after the Anschluss. A commemorative album with companion texts was available for purchase at tobacconists for the token sum of one Reichmark. Subjects of the photos and their brief captions: Nazi party history and major events, its conflicts with the Left in the early decades of the 20th C., and popular support for Adolf Hitler as a leader. My question:

• Is there an authorized (or accepted, canonical) title for this series in English? (My difficulty is with the word Weg)
  

Thank you -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, this page translates it "Adolf Hitler and His Path to a Greater Germany," and this one translates it "Adolf Hitler and His Way to Greater Germany". Both seem acceptable translations, though the "path" one sounds a good deal more idiomatic in English to me. I doubt that there's a canonical English translation of this. Deor (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "path" is the better translation. The word way in English has a broader range of meanings than Weg in German, so using "way" creates a phrase that sounds funny and is ambiguous. Marco polo (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Further difficulty, in light of the above offerings: * Is Großdeutschland to be understood as a proto-geopolitical entity, ideological concept, or what? This pertains to capitalization, indefinite article, and "scare quotes":

• ...path to a Greater Germany
• ...path to "Greater Germany"
• ...path to [the] "Greater Germany" (afterthought)
• ...?

This is the translation of an archival document, so I'm trying to capture the author/publisher's intent. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we do have an article Großdeutschland, and the third paragraph under "History" seems particularly relevant in this context. For myself, I think "to a Greater Germany" sounds better in English, just as we might speak of "the path to a European Union," but I'm not sure I can articulate the reason. Deor (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Very appropriate link – I hadn't thought to look for such a page! The title of the animated map there, _Germany's way to "Greater Germany"_[sic], is suggestive... but indicates no German-language original and may not have been translated accurately. All told, I'm now thinking of a new option (afterthought, above); what do you think? -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with either "a" or "the" (even though there's no article in the German version) and no quotation marks—I can't see any reason for their use here. Deor (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you view the capitalized adjective in Greater Germany sufficient to indicate that this is a term for a concept (i.e. Großdeutschland in the original)? That aspect was the reason I was inclined to enclose those words in quotation marks. --Deborahjay (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to capitalize the translation of the series title headline-style (i.e., like an English title)? If so, I suppose there is some potential ambiguity; but I think the likelihood of misinterpretation is small. In any event, such use of quotation marks would be unusual and might perplex readers more than the version without them. Deor (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that "the Greater Germany" is somewhat less ambiguous than "a Greater Germany," so you might prefer that. Deor (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel rather strongly that there should be no article in the translation (and also no quotation marks). I think that it should be Adolf Hitler and His Path to Greater Germany. Using "a Greater Germany" or "the Greater Germany" frames "Greater Germany" as an ideal rather than as a geographic entity. In fact, Großdeutschland was a geographic entity, a union of Austria and Germany (with Bohemia and other "culturally German" bits thrown in in the Nazi version). Using another historical example, let's say we are talking about the unification of the lands of the South Slavs after World War I. We would refer to a "path to Yugoslavia" rather than a "path to a Yugoslavia" or, odder still, a "path to the Yugoslavia". Yugoslavia is less tricky because it really cannot be construed as an ideal, whereas "path to a greater Germany" can easily be read to mean simply a path to an improved Germany. So I think that the article introduces unnecessary ambiguity. Marco polo (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

references and numbers

this reddit entry cites quite a number references and seems to paint a much more differentiated picture than this article, besides stating the "austrian X% of" numbers are wrong. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

number killed

I don't have the reference, but I'm concerned about the sentence "Overall 200,000 people died at the camp, roughly half of whom were killed." What are we counting as "killed"? If someone is held captive and dies from malnutrition or is forced to labor in extreme conditions and dies as a result, that person has no less been "killed" than if they were put in a gas chamber. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, they were all killed. WP:BLUE. - 05:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

DE GA & title

High time time to bring this article closer to the GA status German-language version https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96sterreich_in_der_Zeit_des_Nationalsozialismus

The title there is Österreich in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, which has a different meaning and is more accurate than Austria under National Socialism. In English, Austria in the time of National Socialism is clunky and Nazi Austria would be my preference. Thoughts? -Applefall (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 05:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You might already know this, but back in 2018 this article was called "Austria in the time of National Socialism". And yeah, I changed it because it sounded like a unnatural literal translation. "Nazi Austria" could run into the problem where it implies Austria was independent at this time. I don't think that's such a big deal though, since the first line of the article would clear up that impression. It's all fine by me. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[ᴛ] 00:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Change of title

Nazism is an ideology, not a country.

I think the title should be changed to, "Austria under Nazi Germany". That makes it less ambigous. Nowy Prywaciarz (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes but the sense of the word "under" in English very much echoes the bogus 'first victim of the Nazis' narrative that our reliable sources show modern Austrian society has come a long way in quitting. As a solution I suggest replacing that word with the more neutral "within" and will WP:BOLD try the change now. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The current article title is awkward and unwieldy. A two-word format would be great as in many such names (e.g., Red Vienna, Black Vienna, Central Europe, Nazi Germany, Vichy France, German-occupied Poland, East Germany, United States, Confederate States, Great Britain, United Kingdom, British Isles, Northern Ireland, North Vietnam, South Africa, New Zealand, Napoleonic France, Revolutionary France, Montagnard France, Dutch Republic). "Fascist Austria" would be unfortunately ambiguous, given the preceding corporate-state period.

I propose Nazi-era Austria, which Reuters and some scholars have used. One could argue that this is a rather relative use of the word era. But it follows a common idiom (e.g., "Bush-era politics", "post-Stonewall era"), at least in the US.

Evan Burr Bukey and some others have simply used "Nazi Austria" (and "Nazi Vienna"). This would be an acceptable improvement, but it may be read as implying a sense of legitimate belonging or possession without the suffix "-era" to indicate "in the time of" rather than (as the article is currently titled) "within". The nature and extent of Austria's incorporation was often contested at least in terms of its autonomy, whereas the Nazis simply conceived of and sometimes used "Nazi Austria" themselves.

If no one expresses an opinion in the next month or so, I will probably apply the former title (assuming I remember). MONTENSEM (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, the problem with Nazi-era Austria is that the time of the Nazis precedes the Anschluss, which is unfortunate because it's in some use and closely approximates the construction "Nazizeit". This article is more specific than that. There is no instance of the precise construction "Nazi-occupied Austria" in Boyer, who notes recent widespread scholarly contempt for the "victim myth" (on Wikipedia "victim theory"). Besides, that might be too close to a prominent name for the subsequent decade (Allied-occupied Austria). I will likely opt for "Nazi Austria" following Evan Burr Bukey et al. but will consider it more and leave this here for consideration/talk. MONTENSEM (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

"Nazi Austria" or "Nationalsozialistischen Österreich" has been used in the work of historians Evan Burr Bukey, Herwig Czech, Anna Hájková, and Kurt Bauer among others. More popularly, journalist Rory Carroll uses it in The Guardian, JP O'Malley in The Times of Israel, and writer Philippe Sands in The New Yorker. It appears in contemporaneous literature and reports (e.g., news reports of the Anschluss) and in forthcoming historical work. It appears on the web sites of institutions. I will work more on the term and the article before changing the article title (specifically to see whether the term is discussed), but "Nazi Austria" appears to be what the title of the article should be. MONTENSEM (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)