How similar are Germany and Austria? How different are they?

[Cranberry]

e: Makes you wonder what an 20th century Austrian state with a monarchy would have been called. Kaiserthum is far too bombastic, while Archduchy is underwhelming. There never was a "Kingdom of Austria", though.

Since a post WW1 Austrian monarchy would in all likelihood been a continuation of the previous one, of course Austria would have stayed a Kaisertum. Your point of far too bombastic makes sense obviously, but this is Austria we are talking about - faux bombasticism and grandeur of days past is kinda our thing.

[Cranberry]

On topic though, it is relevant to remember that the entire Austrian identity was formed by the idea that we are anything but German, that we are somehow different from them. Nations and peoples usually have some sort of defining principle, be it language (Italians, French) or some sort of (long) common history (Belgium, Switzerland...). Austria, in relation to Germany, lacks that, there was nothing really dividing us, so when they started to plant the idea of an Austrian nation and Austrian nationalism into people's head after WWII, they had to start with the only thing that came to their minds - creating an artificial notion that we are not Germans, we are not like them; and which sadly (then conveniently) also heavily included the notion "we are not Nazis", giving Austrians in their mind a cart blanche on denying their part in the crimes of Nazism.

That isn't to say that there are no or were no differences of culture or mindset between Germany and Austria. Largely however, they were artificially created after WWII to forever bury the possibility of a second Anschluss.

[Cranberry]

On topic though, it is relevant to remember that the entire Austrian identity was formed by the idea that we are anything but German, that we are somehow different from them. Nations and peoples usually have some sort of defining principle, be it language (Italians, French) or some sort of (long) common history (Belgium, Switzerland...). Austria, in relation to Germany, lacks that, there was nothing really dividing us, so when they started to plant the idea of an Austrian nation and Austrian nationalism into people's head after WWII, they had to start with the only thing that came to their minds - creating an artificial notion that we are not Germans, we are not like them; and which sadly (then conveniently) also heavily included the notion "we are not Nazis", giving Austrians in their mind a cart blanche on denying their part in the crimes of Nazism.

That isn't to say that there are no or were no differences of culture or mindset between Germany and Austria. Largely however, they were artificially created after WWII to forever bury the possibility of a second Anschluss.

Yes, this does sound quite accurate to me. Whether in 1918 or in 1945, it's clear that Austrians would have willingly opted for Anschluss by a wide margin. Nations are funny things...

Oh, and also, I was imagining a post-1945 restoration rather than a post-1918 rump.

Then it would still have been the Kaisertum, for matters of getting the image of a glorious Austria of old days back to the people (which would have been another means to create an Austrian identity) Königreich probably would have been viewed as too un-Austrian, too German; and if there's one thing Austria was never (say since 1945) too fond of it's the idea of something being "too German"

[Cranberry]

Germany is a proper country. Austria is a surreal union of an ancient imperial capital and a couple of hick provinces most of which aren't even part of said ancient imperial capital's hinterland.

Partly right, at least up to Napoleon. Said capital's hinterland, let's define it as Cisleithana, shall we! did include all of modern Austria (well apart from the Burgenland), however, modern (German)-Austria doesn't include all of these hinterlands even if those being divided by language lines (ever heard of South Tyrol, the Sudetes, Brno and Maribor?). Not that I want to undertake some good old historical revisionism here (quite a strong case could be made for South Tyrol though, if people wanted), but just pointing that out.

[Cranberry]

Believe it or not, Buda Castle is actually largely an empty shell stripped of its original neo-Baroque ornament (which is planned to be restored), while the Hofburg is missing http://an entire unbuilt wing(which some have recently contemplated building). The fact this duplication was not the end of Austrian ostentation (in Vienna there are two large palaces-- the Belvedere and Schwarzenberg--jammed into the same park!) really tells you about the Habsburg frame of mind. One imagines what they would have done had they gotten their hands on a colonial empire...

You left out the fact that the Belvedere is actually two palaces, so that makes it three

[Cranberry]

I personally think the saga of South Tyrol is not quite finished just yet.

That depends quite on the progress/regress of the European Union, I would say. As long as Europe is unified as much as it is at the moment, or even more, I seriously doubt that much will happen on that front. South Tyroleans actually are far more privileged at the moment being a nearly fully autonomous province of Italy than they would as just another state (or as just part of just another state) of Austria. Should however things change on the European front, I'd wager that the whole affair could take another turn, you are right about that.

Who knows, maybe all Tyroleans together free ourselves from the seven hundred years of foreign dominion, anyway if from Rome or Vienna that was obviously just a joke, notwithstanding the fact that Tyrolean identity is actually far more natural, historic and to an extent stronger than Austrian identity

[Cranberry]

On topic though, it is relevant to remember that the entire Austrian identity was formed by the idea that we are anything but German, that we are somehow different from them. Nations and peoples usually have some sort of defining principle, be it language (Italians, French) or some sort of (long) common history (Belgium, Switzerland...). Austria, in relation to Germany, lacks that, there was nothing really dividing us, so when they started to plant the idea of an Austrian nation and Austrian nationalism into people's head after WWII, they had to start with the only thing that came to their minds - creating an artificial notion that we are not Germans, we are not like them; and which sadly (then conveniently) also heavily included the notion "we are not Nazis", giving Austrians in their mind a cart blanche on denying their part in the crimes of Nazism.

That isn't to say that there are no or were no differences of culture or mindset between Germany and Austria. Largely however, they were artificially created after WWII to forever bury the possibility of a second Anschluss.

Yes, this does sound quite accurate to me. Whether in 1918 or in 1945, it's clear that Austrians would have willingly opted for Anschluss by a wide margin. Nations are funny things...

Oh, and also, I was imagining a post-1945 restoration rather than a post-1918 rump.

correct me if I'm wrong but I recalls the Allies forcing as part of the post-war settlement that Germany and Austria will not be united.

is there a constitutional barrier to this if one day they do decide to walk that path?  

I don't know if there's anything in the constitution, but that is correct. I highly, highly, doubt it'd ever happen today, anyway. I don't know if you can even find proponents of the idea in the FPÖ these days.

Some very few, Tender can correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember correctly Johannes Gudenus or some other guy like that said something on this some time ago. Not sure though.
But yeah, from today's point of view it will obviously never ever happen, not a chance.

[Cranberry]

Partly right, at least up to Napoleon. Said capital's hinterland, let's define it as Cisleithana, shall we! did include all of modern Austria (well apart from the Burgenland), however, modern (German)-Austria doesn't include all of these hinterlands even if those being divided by language lines (ever heard of South Tyrol, the Sudetes, Brno and Maribor?). Not that I want to undertake some good old historical revisionism here (quite a strong case could be made for South Tyrol though, if people wanted), but just pointing that out.

I was mostly being facetious, but can you really argue that Tyrol counts as Viennese hinterland? Or even Styria for that matter, though of course only parts of both historic provinces are even in Austria today.

No, of course not, the "Viennese hinterland" is no bigger than Lower Austria; but I decided to use your facetious terms as well, if more for "humour" than anything else.

But you are right, Tyrol is just as much a seperate cultural entity as it is part of the Austrian cultural entity, for lack of better terms. No wonder, given the sense of Tyrol as something of a cross-border nation/region elevating us above the other Austrian states in terms of "we're so special", if you can get my point.

Burgenland is hilarious though. What do we even call this strip of land? It has no name! Wait! It has some castles. Castleland it is!

It actually wasn't even named after the castles. It was named after the cities of Sopron, Bratislava and Mosonmagyarovar, which in their German names all have -burg as ending (Ödenburg, Pressburg, Wieselburg). The name Burgenland thus comes from cities that aren't even in it (anymore), so that should give you a perfect view on how important it is