Talk:Anschluss

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Talk
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition Term used, after World War I, for the union of Austria with Germany; forbidden by the 1919 peace treaties, but carried out under German military threat in March 1938. [d] [e]

Old intro

The previous introduction did not contain the basic information needed for this page. For the time being I moved the old intro to the bottom of the page. It needs to be rewritten and integrated into the main body of the page. --Peter Schmitt 01:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The article certainly would benefit from expansion.
Peter, I'm sorry, but in this phrase "a new government was formed by Seyß-Inquart." 'Seyß' cannot be read by an English speaker, and consequently it is extremely distracting and off-putting to an English language reader. It needs to be rendered Arthur Seyss-Inquart (in German: Seyß-Inquart) or something similar; you handle this very well in the opening (Anschluss and Austria).
Aleta Curry 02:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I absolutely agree from expansion, given that I started it specifically to support Nazi activities of the 1930s, not to be a complete history of the Austrian perspective. As an Austrian, Peter obviously has perspective that I don't. I encourage cooperative on the lede, although I would point out that while it was certainly an idea in Pan-German nationalism, English speakers probably know it best in terms of the completed acquisition of Austria by Germany.
Separately, I have started an article on Pan-German nationalism, which complements this since it will include 19th century influences. Again, I welcome collaboration.
Aleta's point on the German orthography is well taken. With my remaining fragments of high school German, which, whatever nasty people say, was not taken while Bismarck was becoming a political leader, :-), I can read it, but I can't directly type it since it is not part of the ISO/IEC 646 character set and not available on common keyboards. Die Hexe, or Frau Bender, my German teacher, never suggested it is pronounced differently than "ss". Is this true? If so, there is even less argument than diacritic vs. dipthong. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization

Howard, I do not agree with your reorganization. The introduction is meant to give the basic information (as I tried to give it). Splitting this up into one-sentence paragraphs destroys this purpose. The body of the page may expand the basic information with details. On the other hand, in this form, remarks on Hitler's views and motivations do not fit into the introduction. --Peter Schmitt 10:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It certainly was not my intention to leave those as one-sentence paragraphs, and I continue to add material. You are correct about the Hitler material in the introduction, but neither does it fit to put the failed 1918 attempt, as more than a summary, there. The 1938 actually happened, and I've tried to balance this.
No one-paragraph sections remain, and most will be expanded and sourced. Your introduction could suggest to a reader unfamiliar with the situation that the major event was 1918. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


The lede states that "Nazi Germany incorporated Austria, by force, as the Ostmark". I think it's important to acknowledge at the ouset that this appears to have had the overswhelming support of the Austrian people [1]; "by force" has the implication of military engagement, but I'm not aware that there was any active conflict. It was a bloodless coup d'etat by the Austrian Nazis, backed by Germany, followed by a plebiscite (probably rigged to exaggerate the undoubted strong support) , or wasn't it? It had the support of Austrian politicians and clergy Gareth Leng 10:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right, there were no fights, and in my first version I did not use "forced", and only mentioned the troops entering Austria, but left it in now because it seemed to be important to Howard.
It is not wrong because the political pressure was backed by military power, but -- as you say -- it may be misinterpreted.
As to how strong the support by Austrian people was: That is difficult to decide and an issue debated by historians. There certainly was no open resistence, but the general view is, I think, that the March referendum would probably have rejected the anschluss (or there would not have been a reason to cancel it). --Peter Schmitt 11:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It was Clemenceau, I believe, that said a language is a dialect with an army. There was far less threat of force in Austria than in Czechoslovakia, but neither was it absent. I would hesitate to call it a coup d'etat, since that is usually defined as a takeover by elements of the existing government. In this case, it was more a collapse of the existing government and a takeover by, at best, an opposition party with strong external backing. Still, I agree that many Austrians supported it--although probably not German-speaking Austrian Jews. I'm off in a few minutes for some cardiac scans, but I'll bring some monographs along and review the literature. More later. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Pleased with discussion

I shall first mention that it is a real stress test to be forbidden coffee for 24 hours, get sedated, be driven to the office, and then be told "oh no, we don't have you on the schedule for today."

So, coffee is indeed a first priority before I go into much detail. I certainly will defer to others on the correct translation, as my residual German is...well, "Ein Bier, bitte." Perhaps we might get opinions from the other native or near-native speakers.

Anyway, I will provide more details on the specific Nazi actions, and I think I have some source data on Austrian opinion. More coffee. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Reunion

Austria was part of Germany till 1867. There would have been quite a lot of older people alive in 1938 who still remembered that. Peter Jackson 11:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Germany was not a country in 1867 and Austria not part of it: Austria (Österreich-Ungarn) was independent of Germany (Preußen).
But even if it were: "anschluss" does not mean reunion (not even union) or rejoining. ("Wiedervereinigung" is reunion.)
--Peter Schmitt 12:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Depends what you mean by "country". Austria was part of the German Confederation, and before that of the Holy Roman Empire. Peter Jackson 12:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, if you say "confederation". "Germany" is something else. From the (Nazi) German perspective it was a reunion, and this is mentioned later. --Peter Schmitt 12:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, won't you allow "Switzerland" to refer to Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft? Similarly Germany.
Furthermore, even in terms of "country" in the sense of a politically unified entity, Austria was part of one from the Treaty of Verdun in 843 till it ceased to operate effectively as a unified entity in 1254. Peter Jackson 18:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
In fact, there wasn't even a state called Germany in 1938. It was Deutsches Reich. Peter Jackson 11:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Peter, you address what is a nontrivial problem, which the EC might address -- assuming it is recognized to be something that can't be solved with 48 hours of discussion. Both the language and history of names ideally should have guidelines moving forward. Germany is a good case in point -- there is a long list of names that applied over time, over different geography. Who was it that said the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman nor empire? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Voltaire, though I don't know whether he was the first. Peter Jackson 16:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)
I do not deny that there are also arguments for using "re"union (though I consider neither the case of Switzerland nor middle-age Germany as valid ones), but I don't think we have to make a decision here. Here the issue is only a (good and true) translation of the German word anschluss. --Peter Schmitt 11:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Summary vs. details

We may not expect that readers know much about the Anschluss. There we have to present a summary of what happened. Scattered details and quotes, though interesting to those knowing the basics and wanting to learn more, are likely to distract and irritate the "average" reader. Thus, I think, the page has to provide basic information first (or only) while information "in depth" has to be supplied later, or on specialized pages.

I have tried to do this for 1938, leaving the rest of the page unchanged. I'll remove duplicated information later. I am not sure where and how this material could be included. --Peter Schmitt 01:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

--Peter Schmitt 11:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As I have said above, I think that the main narrative should have a consistent and uniform style. I move some details from the main page. The principal facts are still contained there. --Peter Schmitt 01:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Details removed from the main page

First proclamation

The Anschluss of Deutschösterreich to the German republic was first proclaimed by the (provisional) Austrian national assembly (12 November 1918). This was led by Victor Adler, who was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under the interim government of Karl Renner. He died on 11 November, the day the war ended, and a day before the proclamation. Adler had been one of the coauthors of the Linz Program (1882), which called for the Germanization of Austria.[1]

There was an attempt, in the early 1930s, to create a customs union between German and Austria, to create larger markets. Nevertheless, external powers, seeing this as an attempt to circumvent the Treaty of Versailles, prevented it. [2]

The process accelerated with the Austro-German Agreement of July 1936, with a secret annex that gave additional power to the Austrian Nazis. They steadily increased subversion and terrorism throughout 1937, and Austrian police captured documents indicating they planned to stage a revolt in the spring of 1938, which could provide a pretext for German intervention. Austrian Chancellor Kurt von Schuschnigg had, in 1937, tried to get Britain to declare that it would guarantee Austria's independence. Without that, his opposition gradually weakened. [3]

Former German Chancellor Franz von Papen had been a special representative to von Schuschnigg. Von Papen revealed that one of the captured documents had called for his own killing by German agents, again as a pretext for intervention. Ironically, von Papen had escaped death in the Night of the Long Knives purge in 1934. Hans Lammers informed him, on 4 February, that he was fired, along with Constantin von Neurath and others who did not give total support to Hitler, such as War Minister Werner von Blomberg and Army Chief of Staff Werner von Fritsch. Von Papen began keeping, in Switzerland, secret copies of his correspondence with Hitler.[4] The most powerful German diplomat in Austria was not von Papen, but Wilhelm Keppler. He would become the first Reich Commissioner for Austria, shifting to Slovakia in 1939.

Von Papen, however, asked Schuschnigg, in early February, to meet Hitler.

12 February 1938 meeting

Schuschnigg visited Hitler in Berchtesgaden (12 February). Brushing aside polite comments about the view, Hitler lectured him, saying the history of Austria was "a continuous betrayal of the people...And let me tell you, Herr Schuschnigg: I am firmly determined to put an end to all of it...I have a historic mission and I am going to fulfill it because Providence has appointed me to do so...I have traveled the hardest road that ever a German had to travel, and I have accomplished the greatest things that ever a German was destined to accomplish...You certainly aren't going to believe you can delay me by as much as half an hour?" Hitler demanded that Austrian National Socialists have freedom to agitate, he had to grant an amnesty for national socialists, to appoint Arthur Seyß-Inquart as Innen-Minister (Minister for interior affairs), and that Austria's foreign and economic policy should conform to that of Germany.

He ostentatiously called for Schuschnigg to leave the room, and called Wilhelm Keitel, head of the Armed Forces High Command, into the room. After Schuschnigg left, Hitler told Keitel he had no orders for him. Not long afterwards, Schuschnigg signed an agreement, and rode back to Salzburg with von Papen.[3]

February to March 11 Schushnigg was head of government, and final authority was with President Wilhelm Miklas, the head of state. When Schuschnigg met with him on 12 February, he was willing to make some concessions, but not to put Seyss-Inquart in charge of the police and Army. He agreed, however, on February 15, including the amnesty of those convicted for killing the previous Chancellor, Engelbert Dolfuss.[5]

On 9 March, Schuschnigg announced a referendum for 13 March, that was cancelled (11 March) after a German ultimatum and the forced resignation of Schuschnigg and his government.

Hitler, on March 10, sent a note to Mussolini, describing his plans. He then issued OKW Directive No. 1 for Operation Otto:
If other measures do not succeed, I intend to march into Austria with armed forces in order to prevent further outrages against the nationalistic German population. I personally shall command the entire operation...It is to our interest that the entire operation proceed without the use of force, with our troops marching in peacefully and being hailed by the populace. Therefore every provocation is to be avoided. But if resistance is offered, it must be smashed by force of arms with greatest ruthlessness....[6]

German action and reaction

After that the referendum held to legitimize the Anschluss was only a formality. Shirer observed the referendum itself, which recorded a 99.75% agreement in Austria, was not conducted in a fair manner. The Social Democrats and Schuschnigg's own Christian Socials did not campaign. In the voing place he viewed, it was easy to see how an individual voted. The vote was announced 30 minute after the close of voting, before the votes could have been counted. [7]

References

  1. Victor Adler, The Original Nazis
  2. Richard J. Evans (2003), The Coming of the Third Reich, Penguin, ISBN 1-59420-004-1, p. 235
  3. 3.0 3.1 Joachim Fest (1973), Hitler, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, pp. 567-568
  4. William Shirer (1960), The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Simon & Schuster, pp. 322-324
  5. Shirer, p. 331
  6. Fest, pp. 568-569
  7. Shirer, p. 350

Questioning the removal of detail

If you don't know where to use it, then discuss it first before moving it to the talk page. This is too large an amount of material to remove without prior discussion. Peter, you have complained when I did a total rewrite of material; don't do the same yourself.

Unless the material is to be immediately moved to linked articles, I question the removal of detail from the article, which loses it at least for current use by readers. Remember, our declared basic target audience is the college undergraduate, including history majors. The article cannot assume that a reader isn't looking for additional detail

I carefully did not look at the Wikipedia article before writing the first part of this article, but, while we may have had some additional material, overall, it is a longer, more detailed article. To make ours more useful than theirs, we can better organize a large amount of material, but I cannot see effectively deleting any because it is too detailed. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that we do have precedent for moving details to talk pages. It's a nice way to handle it when there's information that is of merit but isn't working in its current form.
The details you mentioned have been put in a visible holding space, Howard, and Peter has put a note as to why. That seems reasonable to me. You two have had continuing discussion here. It's not the same as deleting summarily without explanation.
The article's being actively worked on, so can't you all work amicably towards a satisfactory, polished result?
Aleta Curry 02:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Certainly, we can have amicable discussion. I find it easier, however, when we go through the existing text and understand what is at issue, rather than simply replacing. I don't see all the assumptions in Peter's new text, or why he considers things too detailed -- are there points within the text that were too detailed, or was it the entire bloc? I assume the former. "Too detailed" doesn't tell me much about why it might not be working.
Hypothetically, let's say OKW Directive 1 is too detailed -- then it might appropriately moved to an article on Military pressures in the 1938 Anschluss. As you say, Aleta, it's actively being worked upon. When I actively collaborate and suggest rewrite, I prefer to put my proposed replacement text on the discussion page first. It's easier to see the concerns that way.. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd briefly note that things that were wikilinked in the prior text have lost the links in the replacement. Being sure that links work is a reason to have it on the discussion page first.
Peter's contributions on the three views of the 1938 Anchluss are excellent. I'd like to see that in the lead. From a pure formatting standpoint, they should be bolded when they first appear, not later on under subheads. It flows better when they are bolded in a previous section, if not the introduction. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
They're not under subheads, they are subheads, so bolding earlier would duplicate. Ro Thorpe 02:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but introducing them as bolded terms (or wikilinks) in the hierarchically higher section, where they are first introduced, would contextualize better -- that, I believe, is the only place where all three are mentioned as different views. It's a really good concept, so I think the visual effect of bolding -- or links, which I like better as I think about it -- would emphasize it. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Howard, you mention the length of the WP article as a criterion with that CZ should compete. I do not agree: Length and details are not correlated with quality. The main purpose of this article (and all other articles) is to present its subject in a form that makes it easy for the (probably uninformed) reader to learn the essentials. It should not be too brief, but it must not be too long, either. Overwhelming the reader with many details and anecdotale items does not help -- on the contrary (in German we have to phrase "to not see the forest among all the trees" -- I do not know its English equivalent). Such details belong to be put into a narrative and into context on second level pages for those who want to know more. --Peter Schmitt 12:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As a general issue (not commenting on this article), I strongly agree Peter. I think many articles (including many I've written) are over-detailed. It's good to know the details, and maybe in early drafts to include them - but then to cull them out. It's one of my resolutions to go back through my own articles throwing out detail. Judgement is about deciding what to leave out as much as what to put in.Gareth Leng 14:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Again as a general issue, I agree -- but, in my opinion, when something is found to be overly detailed, the additional details, if reasonably stated or sourced, should not be lost. In some cases, they may go to subpages (e.g., bibliography), but more often "subarticles" (we need a better term). Just as one example, intelligence interrogation, U.S., George W. Bush Administration has some material in a Catalog, but still needs to move some things to subarticles — it's a case where I need other eyes on it.
I do question, however, if things should simply be split or moved without prior discussion on the talk page. That's not at all saying not to do it, but to develop the strategy. In this article, for example, I could see a subarticle on Nazi military acts (not the right word) in 1938. Hypothetically, Hitler's playacting with Keitel, to suggest to Schuschnigg that he was ready to move troops. This point, for example, would expand on "heavy pressure" under the heading "The Anschluss 1938". That same subarticle would also deal with the actual moves, later, of police and troops, and perhaps the Nazi state terror that followed.
My point here is the title and scope of that subarticle should get at least preliminary discussion, and also go into Related Articles/Subtopics to show the flow of further detail. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanations

(Yesterday it was to late in the night for a longer explanation.)

When I first noticed this page [2] it was in need of an introduction that summarizes the essentials of the Anschluss, a gap I tried to close [3] leaving the existing text as it was.

Howard reacted (I am not complaining) by splitting this text into its sentences that he distributed into the (empty) sections of the body of the text [4]. Subsequently, he expanded the text by adding here and there paragraphs with details. The result was an article [5] that, in my view, lacked essential facts, and was confusing and inconsistent in style and structure.

In a first step, I added a section on the central issues [6] without touching the existing text. Now I added a similar section on the path leading to the Anschluss.

I saw no good way to integrate the existing text (partially my own) into this. My first thougth was to move all this to the bottom of the page, but this would again have left a confusing page. Therefore I moved it to the talk page.

--Peter Schmitt 12:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As I've mentioned, sometimes I don't see how to rewrite my own text. That's where I'd like other opinions, but I think it helps to have comments before moves. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

anschluss vs. Anschluss

Sorry, Ro, I should have known better and written "plebiscite".
But the use of both "anschluss" and "Anschluss" was intentional. I was going to ask if this distinction makes sense: "anschluss" for the general notion, and "Anschluss" for what happened 1938.
--Peter Schmitt 12:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would hesitate to use the lower case, since it is a German noun. On the other hand, there is a not-uncommon distinction between "Internet" and "internet" -- but if we take Peter's case that the top-level article is for nonspecialists, at the very least, the different capitalization needs to be defined at the top of the article, probably in italics. I'd prefer to see the usage, if longer, of Anchluss and Anschluss (1938). Howard C. Berkowitz 16:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any need to make the distinction: for me the general and the particular are already quite clear (often by use of definite v. indefinite article). But if Peter wants to change back to capital v. non-capital, fair enough - does look a bit odd/amateurish, though. Ro Thorpe 18:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Ro: This is not for me to decide. My (perhaps misguided) view was that a German word used as a foreign word would have to be lowercase (like sauerkraut, angst, rucksack, kindergarden), but would become a "formal name" when used for that particular political event. --Peter Schmitt 23:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Peter, I don't have a strong opinion on the style here and am no expert. Nevertheless, my general practice, in CZ articles, is to capitalize German words when they are being used in a specifically German context: Anschluss, Lebensraum. Until you mentioned it, I hadn't really thought about their use as "foreign words", as with your example with sauerkraut. I suppose that's part of an overall style question that probably includes non-ISO/IEC 646 characters. It's a good question, and I suspect that we eventually can use style guides for the use of various non-English languages. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I think Peter's analysis is exactly right. Anschluss is capitalised just as Armistice is. Ro Thorpe 23:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Ro in this context.
Don't confuse separate issues: a German word used as a foreign word would have to be italicised, not lowercased. The words Peter mentions, incidentally, (sauerkraut, angst, rucksack, kindergarten) have entered the English language and do not need special treatment except in special context,
e.g. "The word 'kindergarten' comes to us from the German, kindergarten. Our Kindergarten aims to help raise perfect little people."
From the brochure for Aleta's ABC, The Kindergarten for Perfect Little People.
Aleta Curry 00:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Laughing with Aleta, not at her...Generally, I do italicize, or certainly on its first use.
I can't speak to other languages, but I have some reading ability in German, and uncapitalized nouns look strange. Believe it or not, I was able to find one of my high school textbooks, and it was Americanized to some extent even in German: the double-s character (does it have a name) was not used in German text, although diacritics were. If we had to type an assignment, though, diacritics still went in by hand, since there were no word processors and no German typewriters.
Since, in fact, I was expelled from kindergarten, I don't want to criticize that word too much. Suffice it to say that when I had my first full security investigation, in a scene out of Kafka, I had had to give the Naval Investigative Service a 9-page statement. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, folks. The German word is "Kindergarten". I thought to recall that it is spelled "kindergarden" in English. It seems that I was wrong. --Peter Schmitt 01:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Many, if not most native English speakers would pronounce it that way, and lots would spell it that way, so you're not alone! Aleta Curry 21:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is "Germany"?

Peter seems to think

  1. the German Reich (1871-1945)
  2. Prussia pre-1871

are Germany, and

  1. the German Confederation (1815-67)
  2. the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation
  3. the mediaeval Kingdom of Germany

are not Germany. That seems a very strange view to me, and it hadn't occurred to me when I edited earlier. Now I've come across it, I've been thinking about how to achieve neutrality here. Should the word "Germany" be avoided in most cases to avoid possible preconceived implications? For now I've just changed it in the opening where it appears as an exact translation. Peter Jackson 11:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a question of neutrality, rather one of precision. Now Germany=Deutschland is the "Bundesrepublik Deutschland", but before that it was not a formal name: There was "Deutsches Reich" and (before that) "Königreich Preußen" plus many small states. In both cases, (at least in German) "Deutschland" is often used as informal short name. On the other hand, as far as I know, the "Heiliges römisches Reich deutscher Nation" was never identified with "Deutschland".
Certainly, "German Reich" is a more precise translation than Germany. Principially, I prefer to use the official names (here: Deutsches Reich) as a rule (and offer a translation), but I know that there are reservations against using non-English names as the main term.
I do not think that the sentence you added makes sense in this connection. Neither mediaeval Germany nor the Roman empire are the issue here. It is rather the union of all German-speaking countries.
--Peter Schmitt 15:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm updating Pan-German nationalism to reflect some German identity thinking, which doesn't necessarily solve the immediate problem here. As far as your point about non-English names in titles, I think it's more complex than discouraging them. There are really two issues: using the most precise name (with abundant redirects and explanation of the names in the lead), and the use of non-ISO/IEC 646 characters in titles. I've generally used the German name for German political parties, because the widely used abbreviations are based on them. On the other hand, we can't support the Arabic correct name of Hezbollah, and most are unfamiliar with the literal English translation, "Party of God". (Hezb=Party).
Peter, isn't Second Reich a term used by Bismarck and others, with the implication the HRE was the First Reich?
What is the minimal but necessary agreement in this article? Howard C. Berkowitz 23:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Was Prussia ever identified with Germany?
We're talking English here. It's not a question of what "Deutschland" refers to, though I'd be surprised if it never referred to the HRE. It's a question of what "Germany" refers to. To complicate matters further, in the Middle Ages I think the country was generally referred to in English as (variant spellings of) Allemagne and it people as Dutch.
As regards the relevance of what I added, I can't see how it couldn't be. Would you claim that those who argued for Anschluss hardly ever cited these facts? Seems very unlikely to me. Peter Jackson 10:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Steven Beller, A Concise History of Austria, Cambridge University Press, 2006, page 1:
Only since 1945 have Austrians seriously tried to construct a national identity separate from that of Germans, and succeeded ...
I'd suggest that, before 1871, Deutsch(land)/German(y)/Allemagne/alleman/... always included Austria whenever the words had a definite reference. Peter Jackson 18:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of Nationalism, volume 2, Academic Press, 2001, page 31:
For hundreds of years Vienna was one of Germany's preeminent centers of trade and learning ...
That seems pretty explicit. Peter Jackson 16:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Integrating details

I've only done it with one section from the removed material, so all of you can see what I am suggesting. Note that there is generous use of internal wikilinking to guide the reader. Some flow and copy editing is also needed in the lead, which I started.

While I was tempted to integrate more, I stopped, awaiting feedback. At least for me, this is the appropriate sort of compromise between moving things to the talk page, often breaking links, and making changes without revert warring and with an encouragement to specific discussion. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)