Was Austria considered a occupied territory?

[WilliSaenger]

The poll about the Anschluss was made AFTER the actual Anschluss took place. So in reality there was no choice for the people. In fact, when the poll took place, Austria had seen weeks of massive propaganda and threads. (And do you really think, that in case of a pro-Austrian outcome of the poll Hitler would have said: Oh, sorry, that we entered your territory. We will leave asap...)

To say, Schuschniggs poll would have been pro Austria is pure guessing. Also it's guessing, how the German poll after the Anschluss would have looked like without propaganda and threads. But it's obvious, that the agreement would not have been 99,3 %.

All you've written, labwizard, is simply not based on ANY historical knowledge. It's just "Geschichtsklitterung".

[SaFol]

Hi WilliSaenger,

yes, it's a fact that that poll was made AFTER the Anschluss, and labwizard seems to know that, otherwise, he would not say that he's expected to add that Nazi threatening things etc.
When referring to that poll, one should ALWAYS mention WHEN it had taken place.

But what about the other polls in territories inhabited by Germans that had been separated from the German Reich after WWI? They had also been taken AFTER the actual political separation, military occupation, etc. (Posen, West Prussia, Saar Basin, and many more) which resulted in pro-Reich, but have then simply been ignored... In these cases, the occupying forces or foreign groups actually DID NOT say "Oh, sorry, that we entered your territory. We will leave asap." (You can google for it all)
Why should we judge the post-Anschluss poll under different standards?

However, I also think that without Nazi propaganda, the post-Anschluss poll would not have resulted in 99.73% pro-Anschluss. According to the results of the former polls that have been taken after WWI (google!), I guess it had only resulted in around 95%. Only my personal guess...

Obviously, Wikipedia is also pro-Nazi. They are also bad-mouthing Schuschnigg's planned plebiscite as strongly manipulated:

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

To resolve the political uncertainty in the country and to convince Hitler and the rest of the world that the people of Austria wished to remain Austrian and independent of the Third Reich, Schuschnigg, with the full agreement of the President and other political leaders, decided to proclaim a plebiscite to be held on 13 March. But the wording of the referendum which had to be responded to with a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ turned out to be controversial. It read:

"Are you for a free, German, independent and social, Christian and united Austria, for peace and work, for the equality of all those who affirm themselves for the people and Fatherland?"

But there was another issue which drew the ire of the National Socialist. Although members of Dr Schuschnigg’s party (the Fatherland Front) could vote at any age, all other Austrians below the age of 24 were to be excluded under a clause to that effect in the Austrian Constitution. This would shut out from the polls most of the Nazi sympathisers in Austria, since the movement was strongest among the young.

Only my humble opinions...

Goodbye,
Sabi

[Bernaschek]

Hi WilliSaenger,

y

However, I also think that without Nazi propaganda, the post-Anschluss poll would not have resulted in 99.73% pro-Anschluss. According to the results of the former polls that have been taken after WWI (google!), I guess it had only resulted in around 95%. Only my personal guess...
Sabi

I sincerly don't get how anyone can draw a projection from the 1918 to the 1938 situation. For me that shows a deep lack of understanding of what had happened in those 20 years.

and labwizard with his Nazi "sources"; no thanks - though the source about Seyz-Inquart is quite interesting - does not proof his point (or yours), though

[SaFol]

Hi Bernaschek,

you misunderstood me due to my own faulty writing. I am sorry for that!
I was referring to several polls that were spread over the years between 1918 and 1938.
Please forgive me for not remembering all those details, but I can still remember that some of them had been taken in a by-province way and most of them resulted in at least over 90% being pro-Anschluss.

Although not proving what I am referring to, and I am not really trusting that source, you may find this excerpt from Wikipedia quite interesting:
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss )

When the Austro-Hungarian Empire broke up in 1918, many German-speaking Austrians hoped to join with Germany in the realignment of Europe. On 12 November 1918, German Austria was officially declared a republic. The provisional national assembly drafted a provisional constitution that stated that "German Austria is a democratic republic" (Article 1) and "German Austria is a component of the German Republic" (Article 2). Later plebiscites in the German border provinces of Tyrol and Salzburg yielded majorities of 98 and 99% in favor for a unification with Germany.

The Treaty of Versailles and the Treaty of Saint-Germain (both signed in 1919) explicitly prohibited the inclusion of Austria to politically join the German state. This measure was criticized by Hugo Preuss, the drafter of the German Weimar Constitution, who saw the prohibition as a contradiction of the Wilsonian principle of self-determination of peoples, intended to help bring peace to Europe. Following the destruction of World War I, however, both France and Britain feared the power of a larger Germany, and had begun to dis-empower the current one. Austrian particularism, especially among the nobility, also played a role in the decisions; Austria was Roman Catholic, while Germany was dominated by Protestants, especially in government (the Prussian nobility, for example, was Lutheran). The constitutions of the Weimar Republic and the First Austrian Republic included the political goal of unification, which was widely supported by democratic parties. In the early 1930s, popular support in Austria for union with Germany remained overwhelming, and the Austrian government looked to a possible customs union with Germany in 1931.

You may also find it interesting that I found the full video labwizard was referring to when mentioning that "original footage" on regular Austrian troops almost simultaneously entering the Reich when Hitler's troops entered Austria.
(I won't provide a further reference to it since it may be too disturbing to some people.)
I would also agree that it hadn't been made by people "of the left side of the political spectrum" as you had stated.
However, according to its overall depiction, it's definitely not made by any Nazis since it completely lacks their typical claim for an international Jewish conspiracy controlling the Western and Eastern anti-Axis nations simultaneously. I can say that in that video, e.g. Stalin is portrayed as actually being against all of the Western nations as it complies with today's officially accepted depiction of history.

Oh, and I forgot to say that I have overlooked your comment on the pre-45 history books labwizard also referred to: "politically proof read in Berlin?" -- I couldn't stop laughing! You are of course right! Everyone to be taken seriously won't doubt that you are right. Even labwizard will have to agree with it. Ha-ha-ha! Many thanks!

Greetings,
Sabi

[WilliSaenger]

I still don't get, what you and labwizard want to proof with that video here: That Austrian soldiers occupied Germany, or what?

No, sorry: Austrian (and German) history is way too complex for just some quotes from Wiki and a video, you found on youtube.

It's true, that after WWI there were some polls pro Germany (Bavaria, in fact), but also pro Switzerland (Vorarlberg), even pro Austria (Carinthia and Burgenland). Some were successful, some not. One of the reasons, why Austrians (or part of them) wanted to be part of Germany, was that they thought, little Austria could not survive economically. There was no more Hungarian "Kornkammer" (farmland, producing the bread), no more heavy industry in Bohemia and Moravia. Only little Austria with lots of mountains, little industry, a rural country... That, in short, was the background of the polls after WW I.

Before and after the Anschluss, the situation was completely different. Since 1934 official Austria had opposed Nazism in Austria and Nazi-Germany. In the beginnig backed by Mussolini (till 1936). At the same time there was a strong Nazi movement in the underground (the party was forbidden). In 1937/38 the pressure of Nazis inside and outside of Austria became stronger and stronger. Which finally led to the Anschluss. It's also true, that in some parts of Austria local Nazis had taken over hours before German troups crossed the border (Innsbruck e.g.).

But the picture is not all that clear. You see crowds waving at the Germans, at Hitler and the others. Well, the people, who didn't like him, just stayed at home. And in some places people had to be "organized", to wave and cheer, to make the Führer happy...

And imediatelly after the Anschluss Nazi dictatorship showed it's real face, Jews and political enemys were arrested. Others were not (yet) arrested, but were forbidden to do theyr jobs ("unloyal" police officers and teachers e.g.). And in these circumstances the poll of 38 took place. With some groups, who were not allowed to vote. With threats and propaganda. At the day of the poll, people were brought to the polling stations or the polling stations ("fliegende") came to them. Ill were even carried with stretchers to the stations to vote. That's, how this fantastic result happened.

As I said, it's only guessing, how the poll would have looked like, when it had taken place under "normal" circumstances. Still the outcome might have been pro Anschluss. Maybe "only" with 60 or 70%. But never with more than 90 or nearly 100%.

And to say that loud and clear: I don't believe, that Austria was the same "class" of victim of Hitler, as Poland or other occupied countries. That is a myth, that was comfortable for Austria for many years after WWII. But it's at the same time not the whole truth, that all Austrians were Nazis and happy to be "home" in the Reich. As I said: History is complex ... and is mostly simplified due to political reasons.

[SaFol]

Dear WilliSaenger,

I am sorry, I didn't want to proof anything with that video like labwizard did.
I didn't even know it before I read that mentioning by labwizard.
I only took the time to watch it because Bernaschek had referred to it being a "Nazi source" and I wanted to see how such thing looks like. I then came to the conclusion that it's not a Nazi thing, but I didn't state anything pro or contra it.
And as for Wikipedia, I even stated that I do not really trust it.
As for the details and backgrounds of the polls between 1918 and 1938, I already indicated that I'm not an expert.
But I realize that it's very difficult to find any reliable sources, regardless what point of view may be concerned.
And I would never doubt that Austrian Nazis had worked to prepare the Anschluss from inside Austria.
I would also never doubt that, after the Anschluss, the situation of all known anti-Nazi people became very bad if not dangerous. But it couldn't be that surprising to anyone in Austria since the post-1933 situation in the neighboring Reich had not been hidden from them, and it's no secret that any government will suppress its enemies, the only difference is the degree of keeping it secret (a thing the Nazis obviously did not).
Excluding certain groups from the poll can also be seen as an indication that it wasn't intended to fake the results, which would had been much easier. And who being ill would not wish to be carried with a stretcher to the stations to be able to vote?
OK, regarding results under different circumstances, we're both guessing...
And I would also never ever think that all Austrians were Nazis and happy to be "home" in the Reich.

Finally, I can say that there are things I agree 100% with you, as there are things I agree around 50% or even 0% with you. I think it's a normal situation in a discussion.
And due to the problems with the reliability of sources, many historical facts will probably remain unknown to all of us forever.

I would like to make clear that I really appreciate the efforts you made to provide me with many thoughts and informations. And I appreciate your nice and friendly way of discussing with me.

Thanks a lot!

Sabi

[Bernaschek]

thanks SaFol, you make your points clearer for me here

I refered to "pre 1945 history books" as a source mentioned - which can be sources of course, treated with appropriate method and caution.

The video mentioned is considered to be at least revisionist by a lot of reviews I read, even on some rather right wing forums. Sorry, didn't save links. I consider it a Nazi source insofar as contemporary material/comments and analysis are taken for fact and not questioned on accuracy.

Now, to mention some complexity as an example : Willi Sänger mentioned the Austrian Nazis took over Innsbruck before the Germans arrived.
On the other hand, the only austrian unit, who fired on the Germans, was garrisoned in Innsbruck. They were posted on the Fernpass, cut off from communication in this mountain area and had not received the order not to resist. Luckily the Germans withdrew, called HQ, and a messenger was sent to the Austrians.
The same unit was a few days later sent to parade in a german town. Source is a TV documentary I've seen a few years ago, unfortunately i can't remember the name. Their commander Capt. Erich Liwa was removed, but later made it to colonel in the german army.


Austrian troops were sent on parades to Germany, but after the referendum.
The Germans stole even the food from the austrian army canteens (mess hall) and transported it to Germany.
General Zehner died "under mysterious circumstances", General Jansa was assigned residence in Germany, 28 officers were immidiately arrested, 55% of Generals and 40 % of Colonels fired (source : Austrian Army
http://www.bmlv.gv.at/truppendienst/aus ... php?id=741

I do believe that Schuschnigg would have carried his referendum with a solid majority, like 60 %, without to much falsification. Source especially Hugo Portisch "Austria I : the underestimated Republic"
In the second source labwizard has posted Seys - Inquart testified, that he transmitted Hitlers warning to Schuschnigg "cancel the referendum or else". It became "else",
Schuschnigg had allowed the remnants of the left back on the scene, even the - tiny - communist party, and all those were quite in his camp for the referendum.
Now why was Hitler so afraid of this referendum ?

Here for example is a thread where the discussion is more factually oriented :

viewtopic.php?f=118&t=178980

A good new year to everybody

[WilliSaenger]

One thing, that is not very much discussed yet: What did Austrians (Nazis and not Nazis) think, what would happen to Austria after the Anschluss? As I mentioned earlier, some of them thought, that Austria would keep some sort of independence. And they were very dissapponted, when it vanished completely from the maps and only some Gaue were left.

How different the thinking of Austrian Nazis and the German leaders must have been, shows on a small scale the history of my own family: My grandfather was an illegal Nazi in Austria from early 1934 on. So I guess, he must have been pleased, when the Anschluss happened. He made sort of career in the Reich, but still in 1944 he wrote a letter to my grandmother in which he complained about what had happend "to our poor Austria after 1938" and "how better their life would have been without Anschluss". So I think, he must have had something different in mind, during all his time as an illegal Nazi...

[SaFol]

@ Bernaschek:

- Wow! - You really impress me with the efforts you've spent on making your point of view clear to me!
I am the least one on earth who would blame you for not having saved the links to the sources you are referring to. This is simply because I myself have never spent efforts on archiving or collecting sources or at least references to them. It's a behavior that may be regarded as "unclever", but now, we'll have to live with it anyway...
So please don't worry about that, I can simply say that I fully believe you that you have actually seen/heard/read what you are referring to.
However, finally, it's always a question of the reliability of the sources themselves. And I do not refer particularly to any of those YOU are referring to. I am also referring to any sources *I* am referring to, as well as those labwizard is referring to, as well as ANYONE is referring to, since all of our statements, arguments, depictions, etc., lack any physical evidence.
I've also read the Anschluss thread you are referring to. Even there, the reliability of sources is an important - if not essential - aspect of the entire discussion.
So, what I am trying to say is that I regard all of you as trustworthy individuals, and I fully believe all of you that you are honestly speaking to the best of your knowledge and belief.
But I do not trust all of the sources, regardless of what point of view they may support.
And it really makes me sad that it's soooo difficult for an "average" individual to carry out the required investigations or get any physical evidence.
You can see what I mean in that other Anschluss thread: Even posting original contemporary documents showing something supporting a certain point of view may be questioned since - although being authentic original contemporary material itself - its content should always be treated with appropriate method and caution - as you have already stated. I totally agree to that.

Many thanks,

Sabi


@ WilliSaenger:

Yes, I don't doubt that many people had many different expectations concerning the future of Austria.

Thank you so much for sharing that very personal and very interesting information about your grandfather!
Since I do not question its authenticity, I would say it's an excellent example of such expectations you are referring to.

Many thanks,

Sabi

[WilliSaenger]

You're welcome, SaFol.

Yes, it's a bit off topic now, but you mentioned one of the main problems of history: the credibility of sources.

History is a bit like journalism (uuh, historians will hate me for that): You have to check, re-check and double-check on the sources. But sometimes, also like in journalism, you only have one source and you have to decide, if you believe in it, or not.

I speak from experience: I have studied history and I am a journalist

[WilliSaenger]

To come back to the topic... here is the Moscow Declaration from October 1943, I mentioned above.



I've marked the two paragraphs which are essential: The first says, that Austria was the first victim of Hitler's aggression and has to be liberated.

The second, that Austria will nevertheless be held responsible for taking part in the war at the side of Hitler's Germany and that it has to proof, that it did at least something for it's own liberation.

So that is, how the Allies saw Austria.

Source: 1938--1988, a booklet by the Austrian Ministery of Education and Sports

[SaFol]

Again, many thanks!!

Goodbye,
Sabi

[SaFol]

Hello again,

I've just studied the depiction of the Moscow Declaration.

It does not prove how the Allies saw Austria. How could it?
What it does is showing how the Allies wanted others to think they saw Austria.
Since it's written in German, I guess it was primarily addressed to the Austrians themselves.
In that case, my personal interpretation is that the purpose of publishing that declaration was to split the German people by motivating the Austrians to turn against the German Reich. The psychological method is obvious: Inducing a guilty conscience, threatening, and promising a mitigation of sentence as a reward. It's the same as normal criminals are treated in an ordinary criminal prosecution. It couldn't be more obvious.

Just for stimulating the discussion...

Greetings,
Sabi

[Bernaschek]

ähemmm ......yes

[history1]

I found a interesting database today, e.g. the electoral law (Reichswahlgesetz):
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db ... =&seite=28

.