Austrians & Germans

[Armenum]

This discussion is regarding if Austrians are Germans, and thus Austrians don't constitute a separate ethnic group. We should also remember the many other cases where this argument of ethnicity has been applied:

Moldovans - Romanians
Azeris - Turks
Flemish - Dutch
Tajiks - Persians
Macedonians - Bulgarians
Greek Cypriots - Greeks
etc...

-------------
My revised view, based on a different look on "ethnicity" and "nationality":


Austrians and Germans are part of the same family (especially Southern Germans and Austrians), though they have just been historically/politically split for ages. So, politically they are obviously not the same (hence Austrians referring to themselves as Austrians), but ethnically they are the same just like Bavarians and Berliners are Germans.

The differences between Austrians and Germans is more at a regional level (e.g. difference between North German and South German) than at a supranational level (e.g. French vs. Germans).

 

[MathiasOfAthens]

Simple way is to just remember how the german state was formed. Austrian is German but German is a term for the people who live in Germania. So its a sheer chance that Bismark didnt include Austria within his German Empire. Its a sheer chance that Bohemia was included. Consider that there could be an independent Saxony, Bohemia, or any number of other German States.

 

[konny]

1) Identity: Austrians identify themselves as Austrians, not Germans (in fact calling an Austrian German, they will take great offense)

Bavarians identify themselves as Bavarians first too, does it follow they are no Germans?

2) Common history: don't need to explain this

Oh, please do! Would be interesting to learn how some 90% of Austrian history can be told without having it as a part of Germany.

3) Common religion: Most are Roman Catholic, Germans are are mostly Lutheran

In which parallel universe? Germany has 30,7% Catholics and 30,2% Lutherans.

4) Common language: Austrians speak German however Austrian German is a dialect understood by many Austrians. Germans have hard time understanding this dialect which I've personally seen with my own eyes

Ever been to Germany? Obviously not, otherwise you would know that each German region has a distincive dialect that speakers of another German region cannot understand.

6) Genetics: Austrians are close to South Germans, yes, but are not the exactly the same.

Austrians are more closer to southern Germans than those to northern Germans.

 

[MathiasOfAthens]

Bet it would surprise him to know the Franks are also German.

 

[eisenkopf]

This question came up in a previous thread; I just want to restate my post as a new thread.

Many members asserted that Austrians = Germans; basically an Austrian is really a German, the only difference being the name. To which I disagree.

If one asserts that, then they must agree to these identities too:

Flemish = Dutch
Swiss (German) = German
Belarussian = Russian
Azeri = Turk
Croatian = Serb
Macedonian = Bulgarian
Irish = British

And the list goes on.

I think many of these analogies are a bit strained, but I will accept them for the sake of argument at the moment.

Here is a definition of an ethnic group: "An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed.[1][2] This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness."

The definition of an ethnic group is necessarily vague and depending on perspective. Probably a Bavarian sees himself as a Bavarian first and foremost, yet who else would disagree that he is a German?

1) Identity: Austrians identify themselves as Austrians, not Germans (in fact calling an Austrian German, they will take great offense)
2) Common history: don't need to explain this
3) Common religion: Most are Roman Catholic, Germans are are mostly Lutheran
4) Common language: Austrians speak German however Austrian German is a dialect understood by many Austrians. Germans have hard time understanding this dialect which I've personally seen with my own eyes
5) Shared territory: self-explantory
6) Genetics: Austrians are close to South Germans, yes, but are not the exactly the same. Austrians are a Germanic ethnic group just like the Swiss, Dutch, English, etc.

1) This has not always been so. In the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the German-speaking population identified themselves mostly as... German! And there was a huge movement pro-Anschluss in the 30s, and not only right-wing, but also left-wing (check for example "Hitler's Empire" by Mark Manzower on this, he provides many references to specific resources).

2) In fact, Austria and Germany share a very close history most of the time, from the HRRE to the creation of the "small German solution" in 1871.

3) Wrong. There are many Catholics in Germany.

4) I won't understand a Bavarian, yet I understood Viennese. Your point is?

5) What's self-explanatory about this?

6) Sources? I highly doubt the significance of genetics in this matter.

Check this out:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25106

Bottom line is, Austrians are a Germanic ethnic group, but it is wrong to just say Austrian = German.

I don't get your bottom line.

Fact is that an Austrian national identity is the result of post-WW2 order. The Anschluss 1938 was greeted with enthusiasm by many Austrians, because they themselves felt as Germans.

PS argh, Konny beat me to it in every respect...

 

[Dr. Croccer]

Bet it would surprise him to know the Franks are also German.

More Dutch than German, actually.

 

[Helm]

"Irish = British"

Well they are, Ok so some of them rebelled during WW1.

 

[MathiasOfAthens]

Irish would be closer to the native British, excluding the anglo saxons who came over during the 6th century.

And Croccer whats the difference between Dutch German and German German, besides language. If you go back long enough they are almost the same people. Like the Danish and Scandinavians are also from the Germanic Branch.

 

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

Germans=Austrians

 

[Armenum]

-Firstly, take a look at those links that show the genetic. Genetics is a very reliable marker. Austrians have had more mixture with neighboring Hungarians, Slavic people, at to lesser extent Northern Italians. Germans have had much less of this mixture.

-Second, all I'm saying is that Austrians are a Germanic ethnic group rather than Austrians just being Germans. This statement is agreeable and accepted by almost all of world.

-I've been to Austria many times (I was born there!) and I know for fact Austrians view themselves as Austrians and not as Germans. In Germany, a Bavarian view himself as Bavarian but also either at same time or secondly German; there is difference. Self-identity is key.

-Viennese dialect is spoken in Vienna, but that is not the Austrian dialect!

-Remember, during WWII Hitler had to organize a coup in order to get the government to cooperate. There was a Nazi party in Austria and Hitler wanted to put them in power, and he exterminated the opposition in the process. There was small civil war in streets of Vienna in process. Thus, when Hitler entered Austria he met no resistance. Austrian people were at the same time happy no war had happened but also were happy to be part of Nazi Germany which was a quickly growing power.

-Culture I haven't also touched upon. Austrian culture is similar to Bavarian, but it also has many of its unique cultural elements that is obtained in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

 

[Armenum]

Irish would be closer to the native British, excluding the anglo saxons who came over during the 6th century.

And Croccer whats the difference between Dutch German and German German, besides language. If you go back long enough they are almost the same people. Like the Danish and Scandinavians are also from the Germanic Branch.

If you go back far enough everybody came from the same group. So the question is where do you draw the line?

People believing the argument have to also agree to:
Pakistani = Indian
Swedish = Norwegian = Danish
Estonian = Latvian = Lithuanian

 

[MathiasOfAthens]

I think all those differences only came about because Austria's Empire expanded to Southeast more so than into Germany. By its own actions it excluded itself and widen the gap between the Austrian culture and other German States' cultures. As it took in more peoples in the East it seperated itself more. But Austria today is German as much as any other part of Germany.

This is equivalent to describing the different states of America. One day Canada will rejoin the Union, those bastards have been out of it for too long.

 

[MathiasOfAthens]

If you go back far enough everybody came from the same group. So the question is where do you draw the line?

People believing the argument have to also agree to:
Pakistani = Indian
Swedish = Norwegian = Danish
Estonian = Latvian = Lithuanian

Well Pakistan was cut out of British India because the majority was muslim. Thats not to say everyone in Pakistan is the same ethnic group. Pastuns in the north deserve their own homeland and being lump together with the Pakistanis doesn't make this better.

Swedes, Norse, and the Danes are all the same people. Danes came from the Skane region of Southern Sweden who displaced the Native Angles, Jutes, and Saxons of Denmark.
Id agree with Estonian=Latvian=Lithuanian as well, but they too have many differences today.

 

[Dr. Croccer]

And Croccer whats the difference between Dutch German and German German, besides language. If you go back long enough they are almost the same people. Like the Danish and Scandinavians are also from the Germanic Branch.

As Mov said, if you go back far enough everyone is part of this or that branch. The point is that, linguistically, the Franks were closer to the Dutch than the Germans. Low Franconian and High German are two completely different language trees. It's every complicated. In Germany itself there is a large linguistic difference between Low and High (proper) German. Just go to German Frisia and then drive all the way south to point where it becomes all like the Sound of Music (Dinkelsbuhl is very nice) and then speak with the peple at both locations, you'll be surprised.

. But Austria today is German as much as any other part of Germany.

Except they aren't. That's like saying that Americans or Australians are just Englishmen.

But this ignores the fact that there's massive differenceS between Austria and Germany, I've never seen an Austrian who considers himself German.

 

[konny]

-Firstly, take a look at those links that show the genetic. Genetics is a very reliable marker. Austrians have had more mixture with neighboring Hungarians, Slavic people, at to lesser extent Northern Italians. Germans have had much less of this mixture.

What is not the result of Austria being that part of Germany which is the closest to the habitats of said people, but of the Austrians being a distincitve race?

-Second, all I'm saying is that Austrians are a Germanic ethnic group rather than Austrians just being Germans. This statement is agreeable and accepted by almost all of world.

Oh yes, the Hesses are a "Germanic group" too, but that does not make them less German.

-I've been to Austria many times (I was born there!) and I know for fact Austrians view themselves as Austrians and not as Germans. In Germany, a Bavarian view himself as Bavarian but also either at same time or secondly German; there is difference. Self-identity is key.

Rather self-fooling: After 1945 the Austrians came up with the idea that they are somehow no Germans in order to make them "unguilty" with the 3. Reich. That is, of course, utter nonsense.

-Viennese dialect is spoken in Vienna, but that is not the Austrian dialect!

Oh yes, and Kölsch is spoken in Cologne but that is not the dialect of all Northrhine-Westphalia. German, and not a language called "Austrian" is the official standard language in Austria.

-Remember, during WWII Hitler had to organize a coup in order to get the government to cooperate. There was a Nazi party in Austria and Hitler wanted to put them in power, and he exterminated the opposition in the process. There was small civil war in streets of Vienna in process. Thus, when Hitler entered Austria he met no resistance. Austrian people were at the same time happy no war had happened but also were happy to be part of Nazi Germany which was a quickly growing power.

Ah I see, but the Austrian Hitler had to "organize a group" in order to gain power in Germany too.

-Culture I haven't also touched upon. Austrian culture is similar to Bavarian, but it also has many of its unique cultural elements that is obtained in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

And this "Austrian culture" has magically fallen from the skies in 1866?

 

[eisenkopf]

-Firstly, take a look at those links that show the genetic. Genetics is a very reliable marker. Austrians have had more mixture with neighboring Hungarians, Slavic people, at to lesser extent Northern Italians. Germans have had much less of this mixture.

I don't agree that the genotype is reliable marker for distinguishing between people. Nurture is stronger than nature here.

-Second, all I'm saying is that Austrians are a Germanic ethnic group rather than Austrians just being Germans. This statement is agreeable and accepted by almost all of world.

But are there "zee Germans"? If Austrians are a Germanic ethic group, so might be Bavarians or Frisians or Saxons. Yet according to you they are all "just Germans". So either noone is "just German", or the Austrians are as well.

-I've been to Austria many times (I was born there!) and I know for fact Austrians view themselves as Austrians and not as Germans. In Germany, a Bavarian view himself as Bavarian but also either at same time or secondly German; there is difference. Self-identity is key.

I don't doubt that. However, I have argued that this is a very recent development.

-Viennese dialect is spoken in Vienna, but that is not the Austrian dialect!

No, because there is no Austrian dialect.

-Remember, during WWII Hitler had to organize a coup in order to get the government to cooperate. There was a Nazi party in Austria and Hitler wanted to put them in power, and he exterminated the opposition in the process. There was small civil war in streets of Vienna in process. Thus, when Hitler entered Austria he met no resistance. Austrian people were at the same time happy no war had happened but also were happy to be part of Nazi Germany which was a quickly growing power.

The civil war you are referring to was the preemptive looting and persecution of Jews. It was not against the Germans, but against another distinct ethnic group. It depends on what you call a coup, but the (forced) demission of the Austrian chancellor does not fit well into my definition of it. All the since not only the Nazi party wanted the Anschluss, but the most of the Social Democrats as well! I really encourage you to read more on the subject.

-Culture I haven't also touched upon. Austrian culture is similar to Bavarian, but it also has many of its unique cultural elements that is obtained in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

I cannot really comment on this, except that it seems to be a very vague argument to me.

 

[Armenum]

Konny, what are you trying to prove in the end, that Austrians = Germans. That may have been more debatable 100 years ago, but now it's different. People have changed, already generations of Austrians have been born which view themselves as Austrians. Being a separate empire/nation from Germany for a large portion of history has divided both groups. Austrians being in same empire of people in East Europe/Balkans while Germans keeping a Prussian Empire in the North also divided both.

The thing I ask is that if you really believe that Austrians = Germans, that you also admit that all those other ethnicities equals each other that I've stated. And thus by admitting that you've lumped all ethnicies into very broad categories which in my opinion is wrong because it takes away the uniqueness of many of these groups.

 

[Armenum]

I don't agree that the genotype is reliable marker for distinguishing between people. Nurture is stronger than nature here.

actually it is. It shows with what other ethnic groups a given ethnic group has had more contact with and thus more association/influence. According to these genetic markers it proves Austrians had a lot of contact with non Germans which has set them apart.

But are there "zee Germans"? If Austrians are a Germanic ethic group, so might be Bavarians or Frisians or Saxons. Yet according to you they are all "just Germans". So either noone is "just German", or the Austrians are as well.

I would argue that many of those states have been closer to "Germany" than Austria throughout history. They've had their independence (very weak however) but have also quickly unified with Prussia/ German states. In all, Austria has had more of independence throughout history than those states. I believe a distinction is to be made between South Germans and North Germans, but not in every single state.

I don't doubt that. However, I have argued that this is a very recent development.

It's not recent.

No, because there is no Austrian dialect.

Look I know this better than you. Other day we had Austrian friends over and also German friends. Germans friends (from Germany) were agreeing Austrian German is hard to understand for them.

Check this out: http://german.about.com/library/bldialect_aus01.htm
http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~joyce1/dialects/oboester.html

I cannot really comment on this, except that it seems to be a very vague argument to me.

Why can't you comment. Culture is very important in defining ethnic group. Austrian culture has similarities to German but has distinct differences (e.g. Hungarian influences).

 

[Lysimachos11]

This question came up in a previous thread; I just want to restate my post as a new thread.

Many members asserted that Austrians = Germans; basically an Austrian is really a German, the only difference being the name. To which I disagree.

If one asserts that, then they must agree to these identities too:

Flemish = Dutch
Swiss (German) = German
Belarussian = Russian
Azeri = Turk
Croatian = Serb
Macedonian = Bulgarian
Irish = British

And the list goes on.

Here is a definition of an ethnic group: "An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed.[1][2] This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness."

1) Identity: Austrians identify themselves as Austrians, not Germans (in fact calling an Austrian German, they will take great offense)
2) Common history: don't need to explain this
3) Common religion: Most are Roman Catholic, Germans are are mostly Lutheran
4) Common language: Austrians speak German however Austrian German is a dialect understood by many Austrians. Germans have hard time understanding this dialect which I've personally seen with my own eyes
5) Shared territory: self-explantory
6) Genetics: Austrians are close to South Germans, yes, but are not the exactly the same. Austrians are a Germanic ethnic group just like the Swiss, Dutch, English, etc.

Check this out:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25106

Bottom line is, Austrians are a Germanic ethnic group, but it is wrong to just say Austrian = German.

Would you have said 65 years ago that a Prussian = not a German? IIRC Until 1944 Prussia was a distinct state inside Germany, as Austria was a German state outside of Germany from 1871 to 1938.

You could say the same for every other German state that happened to be inside Lesser Germany (Saxonian = not German etc.). I don't know if you're familiar with the Kleindeutschland and Großdeutschland concepts, but all German lands were technically allowed to join one large "Deutschland", "Deutsches Reich" and everything similar, corresponding to a "land/realm of the Germans". Basically history and these two concepts show there has actually never been a question whether Austrians were Germans.

Today, however, "German" seems to refer not to ethnicity but to a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany, of which Austrians are not part, so logically they will deny being a "German" in this sense.


And by the way, Flemish = Dutch actually holds true to a large degree and there are similarities with the German case. The "Dutch people" became divided in two because of political and religious division. The Northern Netherlands are what are today called the Netherlands (since the 1570'S), while the Southern Netherlands went to Spain, Austria etc. until in 1830 it broke free from the Kingdom of the Netherlands forming Belgium. Linguistically the Dutch and Belgians are connected, though with differences in dialect. History has driven North and South apart through politics and ethnical influences, but they are in many ways connected. Dutch and Belgians are perhaps even further apart than Germans and Austrians, but the situation may be comparable.

 

[CiviC]

As always the problem occurs because too often people confound ethnicity with nation. Also there is confusion between ethnicity and genetics.

Genetics can be a component of ethnicity when the genes make a population totally different one from another : for example it's very hard to admit that a Black person has Swedish ethnicity. But if you compare stereotypical Slavic with stereotypical Germanics, they are all blonds with light eyes, etc. Germanics or Slavs are not an ethnicity but a group of ethnicities, and you can really say genes differenciate Poles from Czechs ethnically.

Genes contribute to ethnicity in the mesure they have a cultural component : I mean certain ethnicities have predominant physical features and this gives them a sense of belonging to the group. For me ethnicity is most and foremost cultural : comon language, customs, religion, folklore, etc. Genes don't have an ethnic memory, only culture preserves ethnicity - if someone with Celtic genes is born and raised in Greece by Greeks as a Greek he will be a Greek. The only barrier would be coulor skin because racial prejudices, a Black would find hard times to be accepted as a Greek even he is raised as a Greek.

Austrians are indeed ethnically German or a branch of German ethnicity, but you can't simply call them Germans because in the present German means a member of German nation, or Austrians are not part of German nation and never were, except maybe between 1938-1945. You can't say Austrians are Germans as you can't say that George W. Bush is English, even if he has English ancestry and speaks English he is an American, even a stereotypical American.

The difference between ethnicity and nation can be underlined in the following sentence : a nation is usualy an ethnicity (or part of it) with political conscience. I said usualy because there are many non ethnic nations or pluri ethnic nations; also an ethnicity can be splited between many nations. Austrians are part of German ethnicity (or maybe a sub ethnicity of Germans) but their political conscience is Austrian not German and this political conscience is supported by their own very well defined history that started as part of German history but slowly drifted apart from the main history of Germans - Austria's history is identified with that of Habsburgs; Habsburgs even if they were for long time the overlords of HRE, failed to bring Germany under their control and then turned their interest in building an Empire from lands outside Germany - Hungary, Bohemia, Italy, Balkans, etc. this way Austria started to detach from Germany; officialy the ties with Germany were severed in 1804 with the proclamation of an Austrian Empire, for the first time Austria was an independent state without any formal connection with the rest of Germany; after 1815 Prussia forged German unity and nation without and by excluding Austria (even by war in 1866) - Austrians were not part to the creation of German nation-state; in 1918 there was chance to bring Austrians into the German nation but historical circomstance prevented that; the Anschluss and WWII were the final drop that determined Austrians to reject any idea of unifying Austria with Germany into a single nation.

 

[Lysimachos11]

after 1815 Prussia forged German unity and nation without and by excluding Austria (even by war in 1866) - Austrians were not part to the creation of German nation-state; in 1918 there was chance to bring Austrians into the German nation but historical circomstance prevented that; the Anschluss and WWII were the final drop that determined Austrians to reject any idea of unifying Austria with Germany into a single nation.

The first is true, but the Austrians did not decide they did not want to be with Germany, not in 1918 or in 1945, the victorious Allies decided so. A Germany that included Austria would simply be too powerful in European politics for the French or Russians. Why do you think Austria was not part of either NATO or the Warschaupact in the Cold War? It was an artificial state aimed at weakening Germany, by partitioning it into three (if you include Austria which formally joined Germany in 1938), while taking away a third of pre-1938 German territory. Even if 100% of Austrians today wished to join Germany, Austria's constitution, drafted by the Allies and Soviets in 1955 (I think) forbids joining of Austria and Germany literally forever.

 

[konny]

Look I know this better than you. Other day we had Austrian friends over and also German friends. Germans friends (from Germany) were agreeing Austrian German is hard to understand for them.

But your Austrian friends would have no problems in undertsanding that for example:

[source]Domols dät der Kaiser Augustus befelle, dat jeder, dä in singem Rich wonne dät, sich indrage loße möht, för de Stöör ze bezahle. Dat wor et eeschte Mol. In der Provinz Syrien wor domols der Quirinius Statthalder. Su trok alsu jeder in sing Heimat, wo och sing Vörfahre herkome, för sich endrage ze loße.[/source]

or that
[source]Seinerzeit haot dä' Kaiser Augustus bestimmt, dat all Leit im römije' Reich offgeschriewen sollde' gewen. Et waor dat et erscht Maol, dat 'su ebbes gemaach gewen is. Zu där Zeit waor graoden dä Quirinius de Statthalter vo' Syrien. On daofier haot jidderaanen seich off de Wäg gemaach, fer seich in der Stadt vo seinen Stammeltern inschreiwen zu laoßen. [/source]

or that
[source]In seller Zeit hot de Kaiser Auguschtus befohle, daß die gonz Welt regischtriert werre sellt. S isch s allererschte Mol gewest, daß mer die Mensche gezehlt hot. Sellemols isch de Quirinius de Verwalter vun Syrie gewest. Jeder isch in soi Häämet gange, um sich dort regischtriere ze losse.[/source]

or that
[source]Zu dere Zeit hot de Kaiser Augustus ougewwe, die gaonze Leit im Remische Reich mißde sisch in Steielisde oitraoche losse. Sellemols wor graod de Quirinius Laondplescher in Syrie, und es wor es erschdemol, daß mer sou ebbes doichgefiehrt hot. Jeder is dort hie, wou er her wor, un hot sisch uffschreiwe losse.[/source]

And these are just examples of different Rhiniesh dialects; no Bavarian, no Frisian, no Saxon

 

[Lord Claremorris]

This question came up in a previous thread; I just want to restate my post as a new thread.

Many members asserted that Austrians = Germans; basically an Austrian is really a German, the only difference being the name. To which I disagree.

If one asserts that, then they must agree to these identities too:

Flemish = Dutch

Same, except Flemings live in Belgium and are solidly Catholic.

Swiss (German) = German

Same, except Swiss Germans live in Switzerland and not Germany.

Belarussian = Russian

Different, Belarus was originally part of Lithuania, not Russia, and Belarussian is a recognised language seperate from Russian, unlike the language spoken by Austrians, which is not distinct from German.

Azeri = Turk

Azeris and Turks are very similiar, but again, Azeris have their own speach, are mostly Shi'ite Muslims and were only briefly part of the Ottoman Empire, which the modern Turks owe everything to.

Croatian = Serb

Same, except Croats are Catholics, thanks to the Hungarians.

Macedonian = Bulgarian

Same, and in fact Bulgaria's official position was that Macedonians are Bulgarians for years and years. The languages are almost identical.

Irish = British

And the list goes on.

Absolutely not the same. Irish are Catholics, have Gaelic heritage, and are much different than "British."

Here is a definition of an ethnic group: "An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed.[1][2] This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness."

1) Identity: Austrians identify themselves as Austrians, not Germans (in fact calling an Austrian German, they will take great offense)
2) Common history: don't need to explain this
3) Common religion: Most are Roman Catholic, Germans are are mostly Lutheran
4) Common language: Austrians speak German however Austrian German is a dialect understood by many Austrians. Germans have hard time understanding this dialect which I've personally seen with my own eyes
5) Shared territory: self-explantory
6) Genetics: Austrians are close to South Germans, yes, but are not the exactly the same. Austrians are a Germanic ethnic group just like the Swiss, Dutch, English, etc.

1) Bavarians identify themselves as Bavarians. By your logic they're not Germans either.
2) Common history that is shared with Germany. It was not until rather late in Austria's history that it diverged from Germany, and only then because it was forced too.
3) Lutheran is the most prevalent denomination in the Federal Republic, but Catholicism is dominant in Germany south of the Main, which is culturally almost identical to Austria.
4)The languages are not that different, South German (including Austria) is softer and has slight vocabulary differences. Bavarians have no difficulty understanding it.
5)There was no Germany until 1871, so again, by that logic all the Germans are actually not Germans but Bavarians, Saxons, Brandenburgers etc.
6) Genetics? Give me a break.

I assert that Austrians are Germans, and their similiarities and language and culture prove this. I tell you Austrian is a fictitious ethnicity created by the Austrians and the allies to remove Austrian guilt from Nazi war crimes in WWII. It would be wise to remember the original name of Austria, "the Republic of GERMAN Austria" which incidentally wanted to join with Germany immediately following WWI.

Check this out:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25106

Bottom line is, Austrians are a Germanic ethnic group, but it is wrong to just say Austrian = German.

What does this prove? Mingling of blood? How conclusively favourable to your argument, because someone who has some Slavic blood is less German than a person who doesn't? What nonsense.

EDIT: What thread did you see this on by the by? As I argued just this rather vehemently on a thread quite recently.

 

[eisenkopf]

actually it is. It shows with what other ethnic groups a given ethnic group has had more contact with and thus more association/influence. According to these genetic markers it proves Austrians had a lot of contact with non Germans which has set them apart.

Sexual intercourse, ahem contact. That's all. It does not prove much. If you have a barbarian army rampaging through a country raping all the woman, according to your argument you will have close ethnic ties. Sorry for this rather blunt example, but unless you define ethnicity mainly by "blood" (a very dangerous concept), your argument simply does not hold.

I would argue that many of those states have been closer to "Germany" than Austria throughout history. They've had their independence (very weak however) but have also quickly unified with Prussia/ German states. In all, Austria has had more of independence throughout history than those states. I believe a distinction is to be made between South Germans and North Germans, but not in every single state.

"North Germans", "South Germans"? I know what I would define myself as, but still these vague concepts have no argumentative merit. For every state you claim to have had closer historic ties to "Germany" than Austria had, I would find another one that doesn't. It's too heterogenous to make such broad sweeping statements.

It's not recent.

Just saying "it isn't so" is no argument. I have said why I think it is recent. What are your arguments that it less recent? The whole idea of a German nation is very recent, not dating back very long.

Look I know this better than you. Other day we had Austrian friends over and also German friends. Germans friends (from Germany) were agreeing Austrian German is hard to understand for them.

How would you know what I know? And the simple fact that Germans agree on having difficulty to understand Austrian dialects does not mean it's all the same. Germans don't understand Swiss German dialects neither, yet they are very different from Austrian German ones.

Check this out: http://german.about.com/library/bldialect_aus01.htm
http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~joyce1/dialects/oboester.html

Did you go one click further?

http://www.oeaw.ac.at/dinamlex/Dialektgebiete.html

Why can't you comment. Culture is very important in defining ethnic group. Austrian culture has similarities to German but has distinct differences (e.g. Hungarian influences).

Because the concept of culture is so vague that I'd rather not comment on it.

As always the problem occurs because too often people confound ethnicity with nation. Also there is confusion between ethnicity and genetics.

Quoted for truth.

(...) in 1918 there was chance to bring Austrians into the German nation but historical circomstance prevented that; the Anschluss and WWII were the final drop that determined Austrians to reject any idea of unifying Austria with Germany into a single nation.

I'm glad you bring this up. After WWI, there was a strong movement (in Austria!) to unite the Austrian rump state with Germany. A popular referendum would have led to a unification. Yet the victor state were against, because it would have meant that after losing the war, Germany would have been bigger than before! Difficult to sell that to your electorate, who suffered and lost many sons in the trenches.

 

[CiviC]

The first is true, but the Austrians did not decide they did not want to be with Germany, not in 1918 or in 1945, the victorious Allies decided so. A Germany that included Austria would simply be too powerful in European politics for the French or Russians. Why do you think Austria was not part of either NATO or the Warschaupact in the Cold War? It was an artificial state aimed at weakening Germany, by partitioning it into three (if you include Austria which formally joined Germany in 1938), while taking away a third of pre-1938 German territory. Even if 100% of Austrians today wished to join Germany, Austria's constitution, drafted by the Allies and Soviets in 1955 (I think) forbids joining of Austria and Germany literally forever.

I agree with some of your statements, regarding especially 1918 and 1945, but you can't say Austria is an artificial state. East Germany was an artificial state based only on ideologic differences with the West Germany and as a Soviet protectorate. But Austria has a very long and unique history, it's not created from nothing. Even the borders of Austria with Germany are practically the same for hundred of years. Austrians also have a solid national culture and traditions, it's nothing artificial, Austrian nation has very solid foundations.

 

[Armenum]

Different, Belarus was originally part of Lithuania, not Russia, and Belarussian is a recognised language seperate from Russian, unlike the language spoken by Austrians, which is not distinct from German.

Oh, comon, Belarussian is very close to Russian.

Same, except Croats are Catholics, thanks to the Hungarians.

Austrian Empire was a Catholic one while Prussia was protestant. Austria has always been a "Catholic" haven mostly becuase of the Hapsburgs.

Absolutely not the same. Irish are Catholics, have Gaelic heritage, and are much different than "British."

According to these definitions Irish are British. British first of all have Gaelic heritage as well especially because of them mixing with many of people especially "Irish".
etc.

6) Genetics? Give me a break.

Genetics is useful in determining relationship between ethnic groups. Don't be annoyed just because it counters your arguement.

I assert that Austrians are Germans, and their similiarities and language and culture prove this. I tell you Austrian is a fictitious ethnicity created by the Austrians and the allies to remove Austrian guilt from Nazi war crimes in WWII. It would be wise to remember the original name of Austria, "the Republic of GERMAN Austria" which incidentally wanted to join with Germany immediately following WWI.

Ok, now your just ridiculous. Your statement is that of a Nazi nuthead.

 

[eisenkopf]

(...)

Ok, now your just ridiculous. Your statement is that of a Nazi nuthead.

Oh-ho-ho [sucks in air through clenched teeth, raises eyebrows]

 

[Armenum]

Just saying "it isn't so" is no argument. I have said why I think it is recent. What are your arguments that it less recent? The whole idea of a German nation is very recent, not dating back very long.

Idea of Germany as a united nation is recent yes. But Austrians in Austria have been referring to themselves as Austrians for quite a while. Already several generations have grown up with this identity. I dare you to go to Austria and tell group of Austrians they are German, not Austrian.

I'm glad you bring this up. After WWI, there was a strong movement (in Austria!) to unite the Austrian rump state with Germany. A popular referendum would have led to a unification. Yet the victor state were against, because it would have meant that after losing the war, Germany would have been bigger than before! Difficult to sell that to your electorate, who suffered and lost many sons in the trenches.

Well Austria was a mess, and uniting in Germany was in a way out, but it didn't happent. I won't argue, historical consequences like these have given birth to the Austrian identity. But historical consequences, such as this, have also given birth to so many other identities.

 

[Armenum]

I like the wikipedia definition of Austrians:

Austrians (German: Österreicher) are a nation[9] and an ethnic group[2] originating from the Republic of Austria and its historical predecessor states who share a common Austrian culture and Austrian descent. Due to their common history and belonging to the Holy Roman Empire until 1806, German-speaking Austrians were historically regarded as Germans, but after the founding of a German national state, the German Empire in 1871, and after the events of World War II and Nazism, this has fallen out of fashion and is sometimes considered offensive.
Austrians have also been defined by their national citizenship, which had, in the course of Austrian history, varying relations to the above, for example referring to a native German-speaker of the one-time Habsburg empire, or in a wider sense to any citizen of any of the various lands of that empire that did not form the Hungarian half of Austria-Hungary. In the latter sense, the definition included many ethnic minorities and speakers of up to twelve different languages.

 

[eisenkopf]

Idea of Germany as a united nation is recent yes. But Austrians in Austria have been referring to themselves as Austrians for quite a while. Already several generations have grown up with this identity. I dare you to go to Austria and tell group of Austrians they are German, not Austrian.

Their possible reaction does not influence my judgement. Again, you make vague claims like "for quite a while" ofr "several generations". I take it then that you agree with me that Austrian identity was mainly formed after WWII.

Well Austria was a mess, and uniting in Germany was in a way out, but it didn't happent. I won't argue, historical consequences like these have given birth to the Austrian identity. But historical consequences, such as this, have also given birth to so many other identities.

In what way was Austria a mess?

I like the wikipedia definition of Austrians:

I like it too, because it says basically what I have been saying: Austrians are a subgroub of Germanic people, just like Bavarians or Saxons are. After the creation of an Austrian state after WWII, the meaning has shifted towards labeling a nationality, not an ethic group. Therefor, Austrians today claim rightly that they are no Germans (as in nationality). They are, however, German (as in ethnic sub-group).

Please see the list of ethnicities, and note that the only reason Austrians are listed seperate from Germans is that the CIA worldfactbook says so - clearly experts on European history...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups

You might also want to consult the entry on Germans.