GroBdeutschland

[Hauldren Collider]

"My posts are stupid, time for my I-was-drunk fallback argument!"

[giblets]

I enjoyed this thread. gj Oerdin

But I gave it one star, out of principle.

[Dinner]

"My posts are stupid, time for my I-was-drunk fallback argument!"

Except I really do drink and post a lot.

[Dinner]

You didn't know that the Austro-Hungarian empire was a dual monarchy?

I knew it was a dual monarchy but as I said in my post I didn't know exactly where the internal lines of division were drawn or how Bosnia was dealt with. As I understood Bosnia was only officially annexed a bit before WW1.

[David Floyd]

I can't be bothered to read through 4 pages of what can only be largely uninformed drivel by people who are largely educated by the History Channel, so I'll just answer the question...

The "Germanic lands" (ie areas that contained majority ethnic German populations) that Germany occupied/annexed from 1934-1939 were as follows: The Rhineland, Austria, the Sudetenland, Memel, and the Danzig Corridor. Of those, the only one that had any sort of independent national identity was Austria, and so it shouldn't surprise you that Austria was the only place that could conceivably have opposed (from a national will/will of the people standpoint) "Anschluss" with Germany. The Rhineland was clearly German territory, as was Memel and Danzig, which were either demilitarized or stripped from German control by the grossly unfair Treaty of Versailles, which is probably what caused WW2 in the first place (or at least, created the conditions for the rise of Hitler and the Nazis).

As for the Sudetenland, that was former Austro-Hungarian territory. However, by the time the Sudetenland was annexed, there was no Austria, and in any case, the ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland vastly preferred German rule to Czech rule.

This brings us to Austria. Austria was indeed a fairly willing partner of Germany, and contributed some fairly robust formations to the German military (a couple of which were destroyed at Stalingrad, FYI). Additionally, many major Nazis were Austrians, including Hitler himself, Rendulic, Kaltenbrunner, Eichmann, Raus, Ringel, and Otto Skorzeny, to list the first that pop to mind. However, does anyone know what precipitated the final German push into Austria? As I recall, it actually had to do with Kurt Schuschnigg (Austrian Chancellor, described by Hitler as "a tougher bone than I first thought" after their first meeting) calling for a national AUSTRIAN referendum on the question of independence - it was a simple "Ja oder nein" question. Would Austrians prefer to remain independent, or not? Schuschnigg, with some justification, fully expected Austrians to vote for independence. Of course, this vote was never held, because Austrian Nazis staged a coup in Vienna prior to the referendum, canceled the referendum, and then essentially allowed the Nazis to march in.

So, the Austrian Anschluss is a more difficult question. Germany was certainly justified in their moves into the Rhineland, Memel, and Danzig, and somewhat justified in the Sudetenland. Austria, though - probably not. Left to the will of the people, I think odds are pretty strong that Austria would have voted for independence.

[Wernazuma III]

As for the Sudetenland, that was former Austro-Hungarian territory. However, by the time the Sudetenland was annexed, there was no Austria, and in any case, the ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland vastly preferred German rule to Czech rule.

Yet Hitler did not only annex the Sudetenland, but incorporated whole Bohemia into the Reich, which did cause certainly more national opposition than in Austria.

However, does anyone know what precipitated the final German push into Austria? As I recall, it actually had to do with Kurt Schuschnigg (Austrian Chancellor, described by Hitler as "a tougher bone than I first thought" after their first meeting) calling for a national AUSTRIAN referendum on the question of independence - it was a simple "Ja oder nein" question. Would Austrians prefer to remain independent, or not? Schuschnigg, with some justification, fully expected Austrians to vote for independence. Of course, this vote was never held, because Austrian Nazis staged a coup in Vienna prior to the referendum, canceled the referendum, and then essentially allowed the Nazis to march in.

So, the Austrian Anschluss is a more difficult question. Germany was certainly justified in their moves into the Rhineland, Memel, and Danzig, and somewhat justified in the Sudetenland. Austria, though - probably not. Left to the will of the people, I think odds are pretty strong that Austria would have voted for independence.

There's two important things to remark on this.
First, your final conclusion is a tough call, I would not bet on it. After all, Schuschnigg had to deal with an ever increasing political pressure by the Nazis, whom he had had to incorporate into his government (with Seyß-Inquart, later Reichskomissar for the Netherlands, and especially brute person). He knew, he had only weeks before he would have had to completely cede power to them. The plebiscite was his last straw to torpedo the "legitimacy" of the Nazi take-over.
I agree, though, that he had a chance to succeed with this strategy. Shortly before the referendum he managed to bring the (illegal) Social-Democrat opposition to lobby for Austrian independence. Then again, maybe this effort for conciliation was too late, after all the Austrian clerico-fascists had effectively destroyed many Socialist networks...

Things changed, however, with the invasion by the Germans. This contributed to a psychological mass-hysteria, people were excited by how this was staged - even non-Nazis and people who otherwise may have had voted for Austria. Support for the Anschluss skyrocketed! I think that Hitler's referendum would have favored the Anschluss even without being rigged by a 2-digit margin.

[David Floyd]

Yet Hitler did not only annex the Sudetenland, but incorporated whole Bohemia into the Reich, which did cause certainly more national opposition than in Austria.

Not exactly. The Sudetenland was annexed in October of 1938, while the rest of the Czechoslovakia was invaded in March of 1939. In March, it was partitioned, creating an independent Slovakia (German puppet state), with the rest being organized into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (hence Reinhardt Heydrich's title of "Reichsprotektor of Bohemia und Moravia"). I was simply referring to the October 1938 annexation of the Sudetenland.

Things changed, however, with the invasion by the Germans. This contributed to a psychological mass-hysteria, people were excited by how this was staged - even non-Nazis and people who otherwise may have had voted for Austria. Support for the Anschluss skyrocketed! I think that Hitler's referendum would have favored the Anschluss even without being rigged by a 2-digit margin.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that there was at least an even-money shot o the Austrian's voting for continued independence PRIOR TO the Anschluss. Really, Austria often gets a bad rap during WW2, just because many prominent Nazis were Austrian and because Austria raised several divisions of troops. But really, prior to the Anschluss - which the Austrians never voted for in a fair election, and were likely to reject given a fair election) - the Austrians were a very independent power, and after the Anschluss, they really had little choice.

In fact, had the British and French handled Italy better, it's very likely the Anschluss NEVER would have happened. In 1934, when Hitler tried the first time, Mussolini (who hated Hitler and was a member of the "Stresa Front" opposed to Nazi expansionism) moved the Italian Army to the Brenner Pass and guaranteed independence. It wasn't until the British reacted to Italian moves in Abyssinia (acted both hypocritically AND ineffectively, I might add) that Mussolini felt he had no choice but to seek closer relations with Germany.

[Wernazuma III]

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that there was at least an even-money shot o the Austrian's voting for continued independence PRIOR TO the Anschluss. Really, Austria often gets a bad rap during WW2, just because many prominent Nazis were Austrian and because Austria raised several divisions of troops. But really, prior to the Anschluss - which the Austrians never voted for in a fair election, and were likely to reject given a fair election) - the Austrians were a very independent power, and after the Anschluss, they really had little choice.

Austrians got a bad name because Nazi support there was definitely not smaller than in many parts of Germany. To be fair, some Austrian regions were less convinced Nazis, others (like my home province Styria, or Carinthia) were pure Naziland.
In Graz (and several other places), Nazis were strong enough to completely take over and install Nazi magistracies days PRIOR TO the Anschluss, without the help of German soldiers.

And surely, in a totalitarian dictatorship, people have little choice, by definition (apart from active/passive resistance), but you'd have to grant this to the German people too. There were many thousands in Austrian resistance, and many lost their lives - just as there has been a German resistance.

But I agree, of course, that Austria as a nation - at the end of the count - had been a victim of invasion. And that only Germans can be blamed for allowing Hitler to come to power.
Other European countries, who were equally victims, let the story end there and did not raise the issue of massive collaboration (the number of Dutch SS men was relatively high, according to the figures of the study I presented above, though not as high as German and Austrian). The same with other countries who were not even victims but willing collaborators (best example Hungary). It's been easier to put the whole blame solely on Germans/Austrians than to confront oneself with such guilt.

In a nutshell, I don't think Austria got a too "bad rap", but others should not be exempt of it.

In fact, had the British and French handled Italy better, it's very likely the Anschluss NEVER would have happened. In 1934, when Hitler tried the first time, Mussolini (who hated Hitler and was a member of the "Stresa Front" opposed to Nazi expansionism) moved the Italian Army to the Brenner Pass and guaranteed independence. It wasn't until the British reacted to Italian moves in Abyssinia (acted both hypocritically AND ineffectively, I might add) that Mussolini felt he had no choice but to seek closer relations with Germany.

Surely, the lack of Italian support weakened the Austrian fascists vs. Hitler. Yet, with equal argumentation you could claim no "Abessinia-crisis, no WWII". I'd rather say, in that case Hitler would have had to complete the ongoing subversion and install a proper Austrian Nazi government before any Anschluss. Annexing Austria was a clear priority.