Talk:Cisleithania

Hungarian translation

Guys, there is no such thing as "Ciszlajtánia" in Hungarian. It's "Lajtántúl". Please somebody correct it. Thanks 86.101.232.57 (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

untitled

Shouldn`t it rather be called "Austrians" not "Germans", or "german speeking Austrians"?--193.170.52.132 00:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

NO! Don`t project the contemporary status into the past!!! That is historical incorrect and it would hinder the deeper understanding of further historical developments ( like the conflict between Germans (!) and Slavs in the 20th Century ) --Sushi Leone 20:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd, German speaking Austrians made into Germans and Ruthenians into some "Ukrainians", the term that did not even exist until after the First World war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:83A2:3D86:3587:1ADC:7E21:6C54 (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lack of sources, crown lands as "provinces"

Generally, the article has fatal lack of sources, almost whole its text is unsourced.

Currently, I have an objection against the formulations that crown lands "were not states, but provinces in the modern sense" and "they have been conceived of as "historical-political entities". The objective fact is that the lands were formally kingdoms, duchies, margraviates and counties etc.

Yes, we can cite some interpretations which assess a degree of sovereignty of the lands and compare them with modern federations or unions (e.g. to USA or EU) or interprets the Empire as an personal union, unitary state with provinces etc. However, all such comparisons and analysis should be cited as a meaning or terminology of the author of the specific secondary source and should be not mixed with the legal and official formal status of the lands which is an objective fact. --ŠJů (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Lack of logic, anonymous 2012 edit unchallenged as yet

A massive edit performed by an anonymous editor 8 years ago has not been properly reviewed since. Editor "85.177.85.94" left us with this illogical, or at least anti-intuitive, statement (I am preserving the sequence of fact presentation, but reducing the paragraph to its essence):

1. The Czech National Revival advocated the emancipation of the Slavic population within the Monarchy (Austroslavism).
2. The Young Czech Party principally denied the right of the Reichsrat to put any decisions relevant for the "Czech lands".
3. "They were antagonized by radical German nationalists..., demanding the dissolution of the Monarchy and the unification of the "German Austrian" lands with the German Empire."

This sequence of facts defines the German nationalists (3) as the "antagonists" of the Young Czechs (2). However, this seems illogical, as both the Young Czechs and the German nationalists seemingly had the same goal, of dissolving the empire and moving in the direction of nation-states. I thought it might be an editing mistake, where the German nationalists were declared as the "antagonist" of the Austroslavists, and not of the Young Czechs, with the latter being edited in, inserted, and the larger context forgotten, leaving the next sentence as it was instead of rewording it. But I checked, and "85.177.85.94" introduced the whole enchilada in one edit. Is there any hidden truth in there, or is it just a plain mistake? I'm sure von Schönerer was no great fan of the Young Czechs and vice versa, maybe they did cooperate out of pragmatical reasons, as today's nationalists often do as long as it's about international, not internal topics, but maybe they didn't do even that. In any case, I can't see them as mutual antagonists. The Austroslavists and the German nationalists, yes, of course. But logic and history don't have to go hand in hand. Any historical facts, anyone? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I imagine the antagonism rose because the antagonistic nationalisms staked claims over the same territory: The Czech nationalists believing that the historic Czech Lands represented a single ethno-political unit that should be sovereign, and the German nationalists believing that areas with German-speaking majorities should be part of the larger German state. The problem arose because much of the periphery of the historic Czech Lands were by this point majority-German. See for instance the map in the Republic of German-Austria article to get a sense of the wide swath of territories claimed by both groups. --Jfruh (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)