Talk:Anschluss/Archive 2

Translation

On 30 August 2007 I changed the translation of Anschluss from "connection or political union" to "link-up", I explained it, see Talk:Anschluss/Archive_1#Translation_in_first_sentence.

I stated:

The translations connection or political union for Anschluss are not adequate. Both words describe a connection between equal entities, while Anschluss (from the word anschließen) means connecting a smaller subsystem to a greater system of the same kind. There is always a Anschluss of on thing to another, never the Anschluss of two things (with each other)! The Nazis most likely used this more technically term with a certain purpose. I suggest link-up as translation.

(It's not what the Anschluss was about, but what meaning the word has in German.)

The remained unchanged and unobjected until 10 April 2008, when it was changed to annexation or addition.

It was changed again and again and again, and is now "attachment, junction".

As I am not a native English speaker, I don't know the exact usage of link up, but attachment and junction seem wrong to me for the reasons told.

Agein: Anschluss (from the word anschließen) means connecting a smaller subsystem to a greater system of the same kind. There is always a Anschluss of on thing to another, never the Anschluss of two things (with each other)!

Anschluss and anschließen in this context has the meaning of integrating that is meant to be integrated or reintegrating something, that once was a part and was separated later.

It is important to make that clear to understand how the word has been meant and understood by the people of Germany and Austria.

I suggest returning to link up (or another English word that has the described meaning, if there is one). Or maybe there should be an own section to describe the meaning.

--Abe Lincoln (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that the word Anschluss in German, if used without the historical connotation, simply means connection or access, as in Internetanschluss = "Internet connection". Since accession is also a political term in English and more close to the German meaning of Anschluss than "link-up", I suggest to use this translation instead.

88.70.128.82 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But Anschluss in German doesn't mean "accession" in the political sense, or "access" either. (Internetanschluss is Internet connection, but Internet access is Internetzugang). —Angr 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, are you spamming this message onto the talk page of every article that uses dates? Or why are you discussing this on the talk page for Anschluss? —Angr 12:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Um um um ... I'm not spamming at all: I'm surveying attitudes to the proposal, now that DA is optional. You have an emotional problem with this? Tony (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But what does the proposal have to do with the article Anschluss, other than that the article uses dates? Anyway, my question was answered by a simple glance at your contribs immediately after your first post here. —Angr 13:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Map

Wouldn't it be nice if someone relettered the map in English, such that in an English encyclopedia it might be read.PB666 ^yap 03:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Austrians are Great at Public Relations

As the article demonstrates, Austria was not invaded by Germany. The Germans were welcomed with open arms, cheering, and bell ringing, and over 99% of the people voted to approve the union. The plebisite that was to have been held might have resulted in approval anyway. The Austrofascits, seeking to preserve their own power, rigged the election, by excluding voters who were 21-23 years of age.

Austria, seeking tourism and other forms of financial assistance from the United States and other democratic nations, likes to paint a very sympathetic picture of itself, but it is all public relations spin. Austria would like for us to believe that Hitler was a German and that Beethoven was an Austrian, when it was exactly the other way around!

John Paul Parks (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you have a suggestion for improving the article? —Angr 19:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Appeasement of Italy

The article states "No fighting ever took place and the strongest voices against the annexation, particularly Fascist Italy, France and the United Kingdom (the "Stresa Front"), were powerless or, in the case of Italy, appeased."

The word "appeased" is then linked to the Appeasement article, which states "The term is most often applied to the foreign policy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain towards Nazi Germany between 1937 and 1939" with no mention whatsoever of Italy. There is no footnote noting the source of this attribution of appeasement to Italy, so I think there is a gap here.

Perhaps this comment belongs in the "Appeasement" discussion page, but here are a few ways I think this article could be improved:

1. Add a supporting footnote which describes, specifically, how/why Fascist Italy was "appeased"
2. Modify the Appeasement article to be general enough to cover not only the activities of Chamberlain of Britain but also Fascist Italy, at least to mention how Italy appeased the Nazi regime during the Anschluss.
3. Use a different word than "appeased" and break the link to the Appeasement article (outside of references of Chamberlain/British activities)

While I recognize that since the term was coined, appeasement has come to describe many policies, it would seem like historic revisionism to suggest that if Chamberlain led to the coinage and now popular use of the term, to apply it then to the contemporaneous peers of Chamberlain (i.e. to Italy) seems... inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.174.98 (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: Linking the words Stresa_Front would also seem like an improvement-- even though that article lacks citations, it does explain that "On January 6, 1936, Mussolini told German ambassador Ulrich von Hassell that he would not object to Germany taking Austria as a satellite state so long as it maintained independence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.174.98 (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Jew talks about this subject

This site: [Austrian Jew] has an interview with an austrian jew, talking about this subject.Agre22 (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

Reunification

The real translation for the word "Anschluss" is "Reunification" as Austria was called German-Austria ("Deutscheosterreich"), so it is just a "Reunification".--88.26.56.108 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Anschluss/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The map needs to be relettered.PB666 yap 03:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone agree that this article is no longer up to FA standards?

It is under-cited throughout, and many quotations and opinions lack sources (the text is also rather confusing at places). I have done some copy-editing, but I have neither the time nor the knowledge or skill to provide the missing sources. If someone else does not do it, it will probably have to go to FAR—actually, it may have to anyway, considering that the last formal review of the article took place more than four years ago. I do hope that it will be improved rather than de-listed, as the subject is an important one. Waltham, The Duke of 02:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Also, some of the sources used are tertiary sources rather than secondary. I don't think the article meets the current sourcing standards of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. —mattisse (Talk) 17:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not even close to meeting standards of a featured article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is appalling. It's blatently pro-Nazi, not anywhere close to NPOV. Total rewrite required. "Austria part of the German Reich for 900 years"??? Gimme a break - wars between Austria and Prussia are a staple of European history. 87.194.44.55 (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about pro-Nazi, but it sure does have an agenda... Hitler wasn't born with German nationality because he wasn't German, he was Austrian. Both sides of his family have deep roots in Austria, father coming from Vienna, and his mother from close to the Czech border. They is so poorly written... "The rise of the Nazis led by Adolf Hitler to power in the Weimar Republic initially caused the Austrian government to withdraw from such economic ties. Hitler, an Austrian German by birth,[11] (Hitler was of German blood, but not of German nationality since he had been born in the Austro-Hungarian empire)[12] picked up his patriotic German nationalist ideas whilst serving in the German army during WWI. In accordance to this one of the Nazi's ideologies was to re-unite all Germans either born or living outside of the Reich in order to create an "all German Reich". From the early beginning of his leadership in the Nazi Party, Hitler had publicly stated in his 1924 autobiography (Mein Kampf) that he would create a union between his birth country and Germany, by any means possible ("German-Austria must be restored to the great German Motherland." "People of the same blood should be in the same Reich.").[13]"207.38.210.117 (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Improve it please, rather than deleting. --John (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Major history errors in the "German troops march into Austria"

When Hitler marched into Austria, one half of the people of Austria either despised the Nazi invasion or just left to other countries. The other half, which were the people who threw the flowers, rejoiced obviously. Part of Hitler's propaganda was to take pictures of the flower entrence only and silencing the fact that most of Austria hated the Nazi invasion. Somebody re write the paragraph, I'm a AP US student and this just looks stupid as a supposedly "featured" page becuasae the source of this section is literally rooted in old Nazi propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

People like you are why American schools are ridiculed. Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jros83 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, there is a lot of truth in that. The regime would not obviously broadcast dissent, and TBH if you were sensible, you became a card carrying member of the party, and you waved the flowers and flags if you knew what was good for you. My Mother was there until after the war...Lance Tyrell 2.125.67.39 (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

FA review and revision

Indeed, as the AP history student commented above, this article is not up to current FA standards, and the article require some major "reworking". Initially I thought I would have the time to do it, but this won't be happening on my schedule for a month or more.

Tasks

1. decent English map
2. Review of sources for NPOV
3. Overhaul to reflect current literature
4. Stricter focus of content on the Anschluss, with context of the broader Austrian issues, but only for the sake of context.
5. Citing practices more in line with current standards for the Encyclopedia

I'm sure there are other issues, but these are the ones I saw immediately.Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

1. decent English map. I like the map and I see much work has been done on it over the yeas, but oddly it remains w/o an English version. The legend especially should be translated. 173.210.125.42 (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverting, wtf?

Austria had been part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation with the House of Habsburg as the ruling family from 1440 until it was dissolved after the Napoleonic wars in 1806, Austria was then inside the German Confederation which was formed in 1815 until the German war in 1866 which was forwarded by the Prussian chancellor Otto Von Bismark and seen the military successful defeat from the Prussians to the Austrians and consequently excluded Austria from Germany.[5] The Austrian Empire then joined Hungary and formed the Austrian Hungarian Empire in 1867, and "Germany" as a unified nation-state was created in 1871 as the German Empire[6]. After WWI Austria used the name German Austria in hope of joining the new-German Republic[7] But since the Treaty of Versailles strictly forbid the name and the union between the two countries it therefore remained separate.[8] The creation of the Republic of Austria was created and lasted from 1919 until 1934, when the Federal State of Austria was created which only lasted until the Anschluss took place.

Keep it like that it makes perfect sense.--14Adrian (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the Anschluss, that took place in 1938. It's not about 1440 or 1815. Or is what you're doing trying to justify the Anschluss? Well, that would be pov, and you should please refrain from doing so. Btw, it's interesting that your neither mentioning the creation of the Archduchy of Austria, nor the creation of the Austrian Empire, but that would be another topic. --Catgut (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Lack of the Wilson Doctrine

Since the Treaty of Versailles and st Germain is mentioned, I think it would be fair to also mention what Woodrow Wilson stated in his speech in January 1918, known as "the Wilson doctrine" or the 14 points. These 14 points were the terms for peace that the American president demanded. No more, no less. And this did also general Erich Ludendorff accept, when he for the first time recommended that Germany should search for peace, since "Germany wasn't able to defeat her enemies in the west". Notable about the 14 points is the general idea of "one people - one nation". It worked for Poland, the Baltic states, Hungary (possible, many Hungarians were living in Transsylvania, which went to Rumania). And the Slovaks did already want a nation of their own, I belive. What the people whithin the new Yugoslavia ment in 1919 is a subject of it's own. And I leave that one for others. But within the new Austria there was a vast majority for an "Anschluss", and the Wilson Doctrine doesn't state anything specific concerning a unification between (the new) Austria and Germany. President Wilson got ill at Versailles, which opened the field entirely for French Georges Clemenceau. And hence the Treaty of Versailles forbids a unification. But Germany had actually laid down their weapons in belief that the peace would be "fair enough". If the war had continued, further millions of soldiers on both sides would have been killed. And without a certain knowlidge of the outcome. Remember that the only part of the entire war that was fought on German soil (as of 1914) was the Russian atthempt to conquer East Prussia in August 1914 . And that ended in a disaster for Russia. (a very brief French capture of Mülhausen/Mulhouse around the same time involved no fight) And by 11.November 1918 still no foregin soldier stood on German soil as of 1914 borders. If Germany had got a more decent peace treaty (including an "Anschluss", provided a referendum majority support) the road to Nazism and the next war had not been laid. I think some of this ought to be mentioned in the article, not just references to the treaties mentioned. Boeing720 (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC) One of the 14 points states "The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development" But i fail to see that this forbids a unification between the new Austria and Germany.Boeing720 (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

First victim theory

I was in Vienna at the time of the 50th anniversary of the restoration of Austrian autonomy and saw an large exhibit on modern Austrian history at the Belvedere museum. The section on the 'first victim" theory included a 1944 document from the US National Archives that revealed that propaganda planners were discussing using that for a campaign to encourage Austrian surrender.

I do not have any other references for this and hence am not adding it to the main article, but perhaps someone else can find it. 74.96.75.248 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Blumenkrieg

The article states that the Anschluß was also called Blumenkrieg (Because of this, the Nazi annexing is also called the Blumenkrieg (war of flowers), but its official name was Unternehmen Otto.). Frankly, I never heard it and I doubt it's true. The respective note is a) not available and b) only points to a tiny south-German newspaper. Can someone come up with a real proof that historians/scientists call the Anschluß Blumenkrieg? Otherwise we should delete both the sentence and the reference. --196.42.118.159 (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed it. It's indeed wrong - never heard the notion Blumenkrieg. --134.245.18.122 (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Does "Anschluss" have to be in italics?

(The article is undecided.) Isn't it just another German word in the English language? Rothorpe (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Seyes-Inquart's telegram

Do we have a source that states that the telegram in question was actually forged, or is this WP:OR or WP:SYNTH based on assumptions? My sources say that Seyes-Inquart sent the telegram (even though he almost certainly didn't write it), they don't claim it was forged in his name, Tarl N. (discuss) 20:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anschluss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070404180146/http://www.doew.at/thema/thema_alt/wuv/maerz38_2/propaganda.html to http://www.doew.at/thema/thema_alt/wuv/maerz38_2/propaganda.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_461500064/1938_Austria.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070404180146/http://www.doew.at/thema/thema_alt/wuv/maerz38_2/propaganda.html to http://www.doew.at/thema/thema_alt/wuv/maerz38_2/propaganda.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anschluss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_461500064/1938_Austria.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050217180958/http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/bernhard.htm to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/bernhard.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060421052556/http://www.historikerkommission.gv.at/ to http://www.historikerkommission.gv.at/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060421052556/http://www.historikerkommission.gv.at/ to http://www.historikerkommission.gv.at/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

German economic problems

I don't want to trash the work of others, which is unfair, but at present this article has some very large omissions. To start with, it did not mention the Hossbach conference of 1937 at all, which I corrected. More importantly, this article does not talk at all about the economic crisis in Germany that made it imperative for Germany to seize Austria. The article does not explain why in 1938 Hitler moved against Austria, as opposed to 1937 or 1936. Germany was facing some serious economic problems caused by the Four Year Plan, and it was not for nothing that Herman Göring, the man in charge of the Four Year Plan organization, was the man who was pushing most strongly for the Anschluss in 1938. Timothy Mason, the Marxist historian went too far with his theory of a "flight into war", of an economic crisis driving German foreign policy in 1937-39 forward with Hitler being forced into a war at time and place not of his choosing, but he was at least on to something. A major objection to the Mason thesis is that the sources Mason used to support his thesis were rather problematic. Anti-Nazi conservatives like Carl Friedrich Goerdeler were in regular contact with British intelligence in the late 1930s, and if one was to believe Goerdeler, the German economy was on the verge of a catastrophic collapse due to Hitler's heavy military spending. The so-called "X documents" in which Goerdeler outlined the supposedly disastrous economic condition of Germany in 1938-39 were believed by the British government and had a great deal of influence on British policy in 1939. Mason made much use of the "X documents" to support his thesis of a "flight into war", but there is the problem that Goerdeler had a vested interest in promoting this line, as he wanted Britain to take a firm stand against Germany, hoping that the leaders of the Wehrmacht would overthrow Hitler rather than risk another war with Britain (he was wrong about that, but this is another matter).

But even if one accepts that the Mason thesis as propagated by him is not acceptable, he was right that German economic problems did play a major role in Hitler's decision-making in the years 1937-39. By 1937, Germany was running of gold reserves to pay for raw materials that had to be imported from abroad, and Göring was desperate to get his hands on the Austrian gold. Along these lines, there is nothing here about Göring's role in the Anschluss, which is odd since he was Hitler's pointman on Austria in 1938, and he was the one really pushing for it. This article is a bit problematic in the sense that it follows a very intentionist line in treating the Anschluss as entirely due to Hitler's personal obsession with uniting the land of his birth with the land that he chose to be his homeland. Hitler was der Führer, but he was not the entire German government. Anyhow, lots of Germans and Austrians long before Hitler had believed in an union of Germany and Austria, so it is somewhat misleading to treat the Anschluss as due entirely to Hitler's obsessions alone, as this article does at present. The way the article is written suggests that Hitler was always planning on an Anschluss, which is true, but it ignores the fact that Göring, who was a much more pragmatic Nazi than Hitler, was really pushing for an Anschluss in 1937-38 because of problems with meeting the targets for the Four Year Plan. This article would be much better if the economic reasons for the Anschluss were mentioned.--A.S. Brown (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Images placement and sizes

@Beyond My Ken: The placements and sizes of the images showing the German Confederation and the dissolution of Austria-Hungary strike me as rather peculiar. Neither are placed within the sections but are slightly above which shows the images as being out of line with the actual titles of the sections. Also, the sizes are odd, the guidelines of Wikipedia suggest using 180px, 200px, etc not some odd number and the images are used on other articles and are nowhere near the size they are on the Anschluss article, what is the reason for the emphasis?--Williams Prowl (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

They are not within the sections, but they sit directly next to the sections they ar erelated to. The size of the images are chosen for their effectiveness., and are not arbitrary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it would look a lot neater if they were added into the right sections so they sit on par with the actual titles of the sections.--Williams Prowl (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you specify a particular image which you have a problem with? Note that the page will not show the same on all systems; screen and window sizes differ, and mobile devices show things differently. The size specification of 180-200px, as I understand it, applies to infobox images, not all images. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The images which are described as "A map showing the German Confederation" and "The dissolution of Austria–Hungary in 1918". The images themselves belong in the article but if you click "Edit" you will see that both images are placed above the titles of the sections that they belong to. If the images were to be placed under the titles of sections they are at the side of then they would be in line with the titles rather than being slightly above which is making them look somewhat out of place. I was just making a point that choosing 387px is somewhat odd considering the two images would be fine at e.g 280px. The images are used in other articles with a much less px than 387px.--Williams Prowl (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, they would not "look better". They look quite good where they are, and prevent a title from floatin on top of a map instead of on top of text. This form of layout has been used on many, many articles, and is visually balanced.

This is probably the place where I should remind everyone that the Manual of Style is an editing guideline, and is not policy, nor is it mandatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, they're appropriate as they are. On most screens, the images will appear next to the section titles, not on top of them. The german confederation map appears above the "Historical Background" title on mobile devices (en.m.wikipedia.com) because of the way the contents inclusion happens. The other maps appear next to the section titles even on mobile media. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Anschluss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050621074010/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWanschluss.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWanschluss.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20000525164230/http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob92.html to http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob92.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220071655/http://isidrofabela.com/noticia1.php to http://isidrofabela.com/noticia1.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://iiss210.joanneum.at/demokratiezentrum2/media/pdf/bruckmueller.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.salzburg.com/cgi-bin/sn/printArticle.pl?xm=165129
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050211181711/http://austria.org/press/318.html to http://www.austria.org/press/318.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120715192434/http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=167 to http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=167
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050211152303/http://www.dickinson.edu/magazine/fall02/wiesenthal.html to http://www.dickinson.edu/magazine/fall02/wiesenthal.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050801075711/http://www.uwm.edu/People/abuchner/crisisyear.htm to http://www.uwm.edu/People/abuchner/crisisyear.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The Moscow Declaration

"However, other occupied countries, such as Norway, Poland and France, had no such requirements to forcibly provide troops to the Wehrmacht[...]" I believe that this should be corrected. About 90 000 soldiers of Polish Armed Forces in the West were deserters from forced conscription in the German Wehrmacht and total number of Poles forced to join the Wehrmacht is estimated at 250 000. Unfortunately I failed to find any sources translated into English, other than those directly related to Polish Forces. There is a lot of Polish materials on the subject though. Any suggestions? Jenotyzm (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of the word

It would be useful if there were sources for "The word Anschluss had been widespread before 1938 describing an incorporation of Austria into Germany." in the Legacy section. Mcljlm (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Enosis

What does the Enosis have to do with the Anschluss?--LeftiePete (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

They are both examples of the combination of, or desire for, ethnic communities to combine. Entries in "See also" are not necessarily about the article, they can also be related subjects which we wish to bring to the reader's attention. See [[WP::SEEALSO]] Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

See also...

@Beyond My Ken:, I looked into it to clarify, MOS:NOTSEEALSO, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body.", so I came to know it is a rule, as well an RFC reinforced it [[1]], so it is not just a recommendation (do not think this my greatest concern in the life, just want to be consistent).(KIENGIR (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC))

"As a general rule...". It's a recommendation, and is not mandatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)