Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

[Lamarck]

The Holy Roman Empire which was later called The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was neither Roman or German. The French philosopher Voltaire famously said "This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was in no way holy, nor Roman, nor an empire." However, the territories of modern-day Germany were already pretty much formed by the 10th century as part of The Holy Roman Empire.

It's indisputable that modern-day Austria and Germany were united until 1866. When people say that Austria was part of Germany until 1866 they are referring to the fact that Austria was considered a German state like Bavaria or Prussia and was included in German affairs until 1866. Austria had been part of The Holy Roman Empire until its collapse in 1806 and was then part of the German Confederation until 1866 when the Prussians defeated the Austrians in the German War which ultimately excluded Austria and its inhabitants from German affairs and the nation-state of Germany in 1871. Prior to the defeat in the war, Austria was regarded as one of the two dominant German states. The Austrians favoured the German Question to be settled by the creation of a Greater Germany which included Austria as opposed to the Prussians who favoured it to be solved by a Little Germany without Austria. It's simply only because of a historical war that Austria never became part of the unified Germany.

During the interwar period, the national identity of the Austrians began to be more complex. Most Austrians saw no difference between considering themselves both as an Austrian and a German at the same time. Ethnic German nationalist was rife in many parts of Austria. Such thoughts made the Austrian politician Otto Bauer describe it as "the conflict between our Austrian and German character." In 1897 in Austria-Hungary further ammunition was fueled for German nationalism when Count Kasimir Felix Badeni issued the language decree which made both Czech and German the official languages of Bohemia. Because of this, most of the civil service would be predominantly Czechs because many Czechs knew German but not the other way around. German nationalism in Austria-Hungary was not limited to the extreme pan-German and anti-semitic parties led by the likes of Schönerer, there were a lot of Austrians who hoped for a union with Germany because of both nationalist and economic reasons.

The national identity was further questioned after the end of WW1 when the principle of self-determination was denied to the Austrians when they became the inhabitants of the rump state called the "Republic of German-Austria" declared itself as part of the Wiemar Republic and the majority of Austrians voted for union with Germany. The Anschluss was forbidden by the victors of WW1. This led to the name being changed and creation of the First Austrian Republic. During the interwar period, economic reasons played a large part in why many Austrians until 1938 considered themselves advocates of a union between Austria and Germany. There was certainly no mainstream party during the First Austrian Republic using the idea of an Anschluss in an attempt to gain votes. The Dollfuss/Schuschnigg era never denied that Austria was a German state and that the Austrians were Germans but instead favoured an independent Austria and opposed any idea of an Anschluss.

By 1938 the Anschluss was pretty much inevitable. Although the actual vote for the union was rigged, there was genuine support for Hitler and the Nazis when they annexed Austria to the Third Reich. Hitler simply achieved what Bismarck had failed to do in the eyes of many Austrians. The Nazis then renamed Austria as the 'Ostmark', a reference to the Margraviate of Austria.

It becomes ostensibly clear why Hitler only advocated German nationalist ideas and not Austrian. Hitler was born in Austria-Hungary when the relatively new nation-state of Germany had been created and Austria was not part of it. He was in essence an ethnic German born outside of its borders. Like the majority of German-speaking Austrians of his era, he identified by his ethnicity rather than his citizenship. So this explains quite clearly why Hitler advocated German nationalist beliefs, he believed that Austrians were Germans and as an Austrian he was also a German so he simply promoted the pan-German idea of uniting all Germans into one-state.

It's also disingenuous when people try and claim that the only reason Austrians welcomed the Anschluss was simply because of Nazi propaganda. The idea had been advocated by Austrians long before Hitler or the Nazi party had ever even been heard of.

Some might argue that it's quite ironic that a native Austrian who accomplished his dream of uniting Austria and Germany has made the idea of any union pretty much only advocated by people whom the media consider extreme far-right and has also enhanced the idea of a separate Austrian national identity separate from a German one. Even as late as 1956 almost a half of the Austrians whom were surveyed considered Austrians to be Germans. It took quite a few decades after the end of WW2 for the Austrians to somewhat totally distance themselves from their previous German identity. I often wonder, how many Austrians would consider themselves as German if it weren't for what happened during WW2 and the stigma attached to the idea of pan-Germanism?

The whole idea that Austrians were/are not ethnic Germans is absurd. It's quite irritating when modern-day Austrians try and deny that for example Mozart was German. But according to the people who assert that he was Austrian because Mozart's birthplace is in modern-day Austria is a weak argument. There is evidence that Mozart considered himself German and Germany as his "Fatherland".

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Lamarck,

If, as you say, "By 1938 the Anschluss was pretty much inevitable", why was it necessary that "....the actual vote for the union was rigged"?

It seems likely to me that Schuschnigg's cleverly worded proposed plebiscite might also have passed. After all, who could vote against the proposition, "Are you in favour of a free and German Austria, an independent and social Austria, a Christian and united Austria; for peace and employment and for equality for all who stand for their people and their nation?"

Who would want an unfree, dependent, anti-social, heathen, disunited, war-riven, unemployed, unequal Austria not prepared to stand for its people?

I would suggest that Hitler moved in militarily precisely because Anschluss wasn't pretty much inevitable if Schuschnigg's plebiscite had gone ahead,

Cheers,

Sid

[Lamarck]

Hi Lamarck,

If, as you say, "By 1938 the Anschluss was pretty much inevitable", why was it necessary that "....the actual vote for the union was rigged"?

It seems likely to me that Schuschnigg's cleverly worded proposed plebiscite might also have passed. After all, who could vote against the proposition, "Are you in favour of a free and German Austria, an independent and social Austria, a Christian and united Austria; for peace and employment and for equality for all who stand for their people and their nation?"

Who would want an unfree, dependent, anti-social, heathen, disunited, war-riven, unemployed, unequal Austria not prepared to stand for its people?

I would suggest that Hitler moved in militarily precisely because Anschluss wasn't pretty much inevitable if Schuschnigg's plebiscite had gone ahead,

Cheers,

Sid

Because although Schuschnigg's estimate that he could probably have got the two-thirds of votes in the plebiscite, by 1938 most Austrians wanted a change of circumstances and the prospect of a union with Germany was seen as a positive thing because of all the economically good things that Hitler had accomplished in Germany during his early years in power. The idea of a union wasn't even exclusive to pan-German nationalists, even Austrian Marxists hoped for a union so they could see an "all-German revolution". It was actually only the Communists who gave a serious thought of Austria to remain as an independent nation-state but they didn't have any influence or power in Austrian politics. The available evidence shows that in 1938 most Austrians supported the Anschluss.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Lamarck,

Which leads us back to the question; "If by 1938 the Anschluss was pretty much inevitable", why was it necessary that "....the actual vote for the union was rigged" by the Nazis?

Cheers,

Sid

[Lamarck]

Hi Lamarck,

Which leads us back to the question; "If by 1938 the Anschluss was pretty much inevitable", why was it necessary that "....the actual vote for the union was rigged" by the Nazis?

Cheers,

Sid

Hi Sid,

I think that more has to do with the Nazis appeal to popularity rather than the actual general consensus of the Austrian people in 1938. For example, when Hitler started to rise to power in Germany, the Austrians did not vote in any large proportion for the Austrian Nazi Party or any pan-German party.

It's also important to note that the actual mood and feelings of the Austrians during the interwar period and the rise of Nazism were somewhat interlinked when it came to anti-semitism. Many Austrians were willing to (and did) carry out the desires that Hitler and the Nazis had for the Jews.

If you haven't already, I recommend you to read Evan Burr Bukey's book Hitler's Austria: Popular Sentiment in the Nazi Era, 1938-1945.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Lamarck,

My theory is that, if not rigged, however worded, a freely conducted Austrian plebiscite would have produced a less favourable outcome than the Saar plebiscite organized three years before by the League of Nations, which had been 91% in favour of union with Germany. This would have been embarrassing and might have looked like Nazism's appeal was waning.

Cheers,

Sid

[Lamarck]

Hi Lamarck,

My theory is that, if not rigged, however worded, a freely conducted Austrian plebiscite would have produced a less favourable outcome than the Saar plebiscite organized three years before by the League of Nations, which had been 91% in favour of union with Germany. This would have been embarrassing and might have looked like Nazism's appeal was waning.

Cheers,

Sid

I agree with you.

Here is some relative information on what we are discussing:

The available evidence, although anecdotal and impressionistic, indicates that by 1938 most Austrians were seeking dramatic political change. Impelled by economic misery, disdain for the existing political system, and growing awe of the German Reich, a significant number saw amalgamation as the only way out of their misery. Within the welter of confusing, multifaceted, and oscillating attitudes, however, there was no consensual commitment to the ideological tenets of National Socialism. At the very most, no more than a third of the Austrian people had become true believers. Schuschnigg's estimate of two-thirds support for his plebiscite on Austrian independence was, therefore, probably correct: once Socialist and Catholic elites approved the referendum, they could be counted on to deliver the votes. Conversely, when the plebiscite was canceled and the Anschluss actually took place, the issue of Austrian identity seemed settled forever. This helps to explain why there occurred such an astonishing outpouring of euphoria and support for the new Greater Germany, meaning a mighty union of Germanic peoples under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, himself an Austrian.

Evan Burr Buke, Hitler's Austria: Popular Sentiment in the Nazi Era, 1938-1945, p. 22

[offizier1916]

Just read most of the comments. Interesting topic. imo croger is right regarding outcome of ww1 (sleepwalkers), the destructive consequences of the versailler vertrag and also regarding bismarcks brilliance.

And the reason why hitler was a german nationalist was also explained by croger and - btw - could have been answered with few minutes of internet research.

People here should def read more regarding the developpment of german nationalism and also regarding the austrian germanism. Its a pretty topical discussion in fact. With the FPÖ, the austrian gouvernment consists of a party which is heavily anchored in the austrian fencing fraternities who in turn are "großdeutsch" in their historical awareness.



Just a few words:
1. There is not even a debate that the germans in the 19th and 20th century saw the HRRDN as their heritage, that they felt historically related and attatched to it. Remember: 1st reich, 2nd reich, 3rd reich.
2. Ernst moritz arndt: "was ist des deutschen vaterland". German empire should unite all people speaking german and its dialects.
3. Why did we build e.g. the Hermannsdenkmal to tribute the germanic prince Arminus defeating the roman army 9nchr. Of course those cherusker or markomannen tribes were not germans by todays (or even any) standard, but at that time people strongly related to the mighty germanic tribes.
What does that mean: people in a big part of central europe felt as "german", historically, culturally and by language. The so called grossdeutsche Lösung including the austrian empire (without hungary) was favorited especially by the emerging liberal classes and discussed in 1848. But we all know the outcome of the so called german duallism between Preußen and Österreich.

[Lamarck]

And the reason why hitler was a german nationalist was also explained by croger and - btw - could have been answered with few minutes of internet research.

Some would argue that it is ironic for an Austrian of unknown pedigree to have been such a vehemently outspoken German nationalist. He couldn't even provide sufficient proof of his own German ancestry and "Aryan origins" which was made a requirement for anyone who wanted to be Reich citizens after the Nuremberg Laws were passed.

Although the rumours of Czech and Jewish ancestry have never been proved, several historians have remarked about the interbreeding of the Hitler family. German historian Helmut Heiber wrote in his Hitler biography:

The aberrational quality of the Hitler family beginning with the ambitious and enterprising father or Adolf shows that other blood must have entered the Lower Austrian Waldviertel stock which had been weakened by years of interbreeding.

Helmut Heiber, Adolf Hitler, 1961, p. 8

Just a few words:
1. There is not even a debate that the germans in the 19th and 20th century saw the HRRDN as their heritage, that they felt historically related and attatched to it. Remember: 1st reich, 2nd reich, 3rd reich.

That's true but is it right to describe the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation as "Germany"? Were all of the modern-day countries that were once part of it also once part of Germany?

2. Ernst moritz arndt: "was ist des deutschen vaterland". German empire should unite all people speaking german and its dialects.

What about the Austrians who spoke other languages such as Czech? One of the reasons Bismarck was not in favour of allowing Austria to join Germany as a nation-state was because the Austrian Empire ruled over many people who did not speak German nor were ethnically German. After the Nazis annexed Austria in the Anschluss, there were quite a few prominent Austrian Nazis whom had quite clear Slavic ancestry such as Globocnik and Skorzeny.

[michael mills]

When meetings were held for the South Mark German League and the School League we wore cornflowers and black-red-gold colours to express our loyalty.

Interesting.

Black-red-gold were the colours of the Weimar Republic, and before it of the revolutionary movement of 1848. Initially they were the colours of the anti-French movement in 1813-15.

They were not the colours of the German Reich founded by Bismarck, which were black-white-red. Indeed, in the German Reich, the black-red-gold colours were banned as expressing enmity toward the Hohenzollern dynasty, just as they were banned in the Habsburg Monarchy as an expression of hostility toward the Habsburg dynasty (as indeed they were, according to Hitler).

It is therefore remarkable that when Hitler became the undisputed ruler of Germany he retained the black-white-red colours of the Hohenzollern Reich, rather than the black-red-gold which in his youth he had considered to be the colours of ethnic German nationalism. Why did he choose to use the colours of Bismarck's Reich? Was it to appease the conservatives whose support he relied on?

[michael mills]

But according to the people who assert that he was Austrian because Mozart's birthplace is in modern-day Austria is a weak argument.

When Mozart was born, his birthplace Salzburg was not part of the Habsburg domains. It was one of the independent ecclesiastical states, ruled by prelates of the Catholic Church, that belonged to the Holy Roman Empire along with the many secular states. In that respect it had the same status as the Archbishopric of Cologne, also an ecclesiastical state. At the time of Mozart's death Salzburg was still an independent ecclesiastical state of the Holy Roman Empire.

The changes in Salzburg's status were wrought by Napoleon, well after Mozart's death. First he secularised it and turned it into the Electorate of Salzburg, placing it under the rule of the former Grand-Duke of Tuscany. Then in 1805 he gave it to the newly-formed Austrian Empire which replaced the collapsing Holy Roman Empire. Then in 1809 he transferred it to the Kingdom of Bavaria, which meant that it became part of the Confederation of the Rhine, the German state created by Napoleon excluding both Prussia and Austria.

It was not until the final defeat of Napoleon in 1815 that Salzburg was definitively given to the Austrian Empire by decree of the Congress of Vienna.

[michael mills]

At what point in the history of Slavonia did the Slavonians become Croats or Serbs? And why?

During the 19th Century. Catholic inhabitants of Slavonia began to identify themselves as Croats, and Orthodox inhabitants as Serbs. Among the population of Slavonia were immigrants from Dalmatia, the Sokci and Bunjevci. Being Catholic, they were eventually absorbed into the Croat ethnic group.

There is also the fact that since the early medieval period the kingdoms of Croatia and Slavonia were linked under a single ruler. Zagreb was actually situated in the Kingdom of Slavonia rather than in the Kingdom of Croatia. There was however a linguistic difference between the two kingdoms; the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Croatia in medieval times spoke mainly Chakavian dialects of South Slavic while the inhabitants of the kingdom of Slavonia, at least of the western part of it around Zagreb, spoke Kajkavian dialects similar to Slovenian.

Great changes were brought about by the Ottoman conquest in the early 16th Century. Only the western part of Slavonia, around Zagreb, remained free of Ottoman control, and in 1526 the nobility of western Slavonia, together with those of Croatia and Hungary, elected the Habsburg Archduke of Austria as their king, and from that time onward Croatia, Slavonia and Hungary were part of the Habsburg domains.

After the reconquest of Hungary by the Habsburgs in the last two decades of the 17th Century, the central and eastern parts of Slavonia that had been under Ottoman rule were extensively resettled by immigrants of various ethnicities, brought in by the new Habsburg rulers. Among those immigrants were large numbers of Germans who founded the towns in eastern Slavonia and Vojvodina, and carried out the drainage and flood-control works that made settled agriculture possible in a region that up until then had been inhabited only by a handful of nomadic cattle-herders. Other immigrant groups were the Sokci and Bunjevci from Dalmatia, who eventually were absorbed into the Croatian nation. The Habsburgs also brought in Vlachs, who because they were Orthodox eventually were absorbed into the Serb nation, although for a long time they were separately identified as Vlasi, right up until modern times.

[michael mills]

The hyper-inflation was at least partly induced deliberately by the German central bank in order to discount the reparations due under Versailles and was cured by it as well.

A myth. The major factor that led to the hyperinflation was the fact that during the period between the armistice and the final signing of the treaty of Versailles, Germany had to use up almost all its gold reserves to pay for the food imports that the victorious Allies permitted during that interim period, since Germany was still banned from exporting, with the result that it could not earn foreign exchange to pay for the food imports.

Thus, once the Treaty of Versailles had come into force and Germany was once again allowed to participate in international trade, its currency was very weak with hardly any gold reserves to back it. In that situation, once inflation started it was practically impossible to stop it accelerating into hyperinflation.

Since Germany was required to pay reparations in gold marks and not in paper money, any inflation of the German currency had no effect whatever on the amounts Germany had to pay. The gold mark had a fixed value in relation to the currencies of the countries to which reparations were owed, and that value was not reduced by the hyperinflation.

[michael mills]

Germany also had plans against France, but unlike the French plans, the one executed included violation of neutral Belgium

The French plans did include a march through Belgium so as to be able to quickly invade the Ruhr, Germany's industrial heartland.

However, the British Government refused to allow France to implement that part of their plans, since a French violation of Belgian neutrality would make it politically very difficult if not impossible to join France against Germany. Thus, the French military gave up its plan to invade Germany through Belgium and limited itself to an invasion through Alsace-Lorraine, which turned out to be a disaster.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Michael,

You say "Thus, the French military...... limited itself to an invasion through Alsace-Lorraine, which turned out to be a disaster."

Are you referring to the aborted Saar operation in September 1939?

If so, "disaster" is a bit of an over statement. "Damp squib", perhaps.

The other thing is that every country, provided it has a half decent general staff, has multiple plans, defensive and offensive. The French would have been foolish not to have a variety of planning options against Germany including crossing Belgium. However, it is noticeable that their pre-war planning envisaged an extension of the Maginot Line along the border behind Belgium, which indicates a defensive mindset that was confirmed after the outbreak of war.

Cheers,

Sid.