Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

[Lamarck]

Sid,

I would also like you to tell me how the Schuschnigg's plebiscite would have been any fairer than Hitler's plebiscite. Schuschnigg was also a dictator and a fascist. He also set certain restrictions on the proposed plebiscite. He restricted the age group, Hitler restricted which people could vote in the plebiscite. Two sides of the same coin really.

[ljadw]

In Plebiszit und Diktatur, Jung writes the following on P 122 (available on line )

The Socialists agreed with the plebiscite, but opposed the elections for the Reichstag that were associated with the plebiscite,because there was only one list : the NSDAP.

The Socialists estiled that 80 %of the Austrians would have voted yes,if the plebiscite was free .

And, Jung refers also to an other Anschluss Expert Botz, who said the following :it is questionable that the Austrians of the thirties would have voted differently in a free plebiscite as the inhabitants of the Saar who in 1935 voted, in a free plebiscite, for the return to the Reich, with 90 %,although they knew what was waiting for them .

[Lamarck]

It is difficult to deny that a majority of Austrians desired the Anschluss. During the 1920s the figure of 90 percent was loosely used. This was based upon plebiscites held in Salzburg and Tyrol where less than 2 and 7 percent, respectively, voted for independence. While there were no opinion polls in the stabler years after 1923, there was other evidence to indicate Austrian support.

Stanley Suval, The Anschluss question in the Weimar era: a study of nationalism in Germany and Austria, 1918-1932, p. 169.

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,



Surely, the fact that the Austrian Nazi coup of 1934 was relatively easily put down by the Austrian Army in the absence of German support implies that Nazi support was far from "overwhelming" at the time?

I

Cheers,

Sid.

This is not correct : support for the Anschluss does not mean willingness to fight and die for the Anschluss .

[ljadw]

In his memoirs Guderian said that in the autumn the 2nd PzD received Austrian recruits,I assume that this was the reason why it remained in Austria .

I found back Panzerleader,as one could expect, it stood immediately before my eyes .


P 56 :

"2 Pz remained in the Vienna area, and from the autumn of that year began to receive Austrian replacements .The LSS ...returned to Berlin ......The area around Würzburg was now empty,and it was here that in the autumn of 1938 a new PzD ,the 4th, was set up under general Reinhardt . " .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Lamarck,

You post. "Historians agree that the plebiscite was rigged (to what degree remains unknown) but it's actually rather moot compared to the overall feeling of the general Austrian population towards the idea of Austria being part of Germany. All sorts of different walks of life welcomed the Anschluss in 1938. You can read my previous post that LIFE acknowledged that the Austrian and German referendums were "largely honest"."

The whole point of a plebiscite is to find out the settled will of the population. The Nazi plebiscite was rigged not to a degree that remains unknown, but a lot. For example, every single ballot paper was rigged in its lay out, as detailed above. This means that 100% of votes were rigged to some degree and this is just one example of the rigging. (Read Albert Goering's description for others.)

In view of the rigging, it is not "rather moot compared to the overall feeling of the general Austrian population" because the Nazi plebiscite fails through its limitations to give a reliable impression of "the overall feeling of the general Austrian population". For example, its results disagrees by around 33% (99% v. 66%) with some of the sources you quote.

In view of this, Life magazine's journalistic opinion that it was "largely honest" is a bit ridiculous!

To quote part of the Evan Burr Bukey extract back to you, "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 delivery the votes." One of my possibilities put rather more firmly than I have hitherto.

To quote part of your Peter J. Katzenstein extract back to you: ".....contemporary observers and a number of historians estimate that probably a majority of the Austrians and perhaps as many as two-thirds of the population favored the Anschluss in the spring of 1938." Again, this reinforces my point that Austrian support for Anschluss may not have been "overwhelming" as claimed by others, even though a clear majority were probably in favour, as I have said consistently above.

You post, "It is not enough just to attribute to electoral manipulation the overwhelming Austrian approval of the Anschluss in 1938. Enthusiasm was widespread and genuine." Luckily I have not done so and can agree with this sentence. What is your point?

You write, "In various parts of Austria, the general feeling towards an Anschluss was rather negative, especially Vienna. However, the overall feeling was positive." Yup. That agrees with my impression (and it might help explain why Vienna was occupied by a German-manned panzer division long after the Anschluss.)

You write, "If you genuinely don't think that's not an overwhelming amount of support then I suggest you look up the definition of 'overwhelming'."

If it only required 16% (1 in 6) of the population to change their minds to overturn a "perhaps as many as two-thirds" majority in favour of Anschluss, then that majority is hardly "overwhelming". It is a good and adequate majority, yes, but "overwhelming"? No!

Again I ask you what these surveys contain. You apparently have access to them, whereas we don't. As you are using them as supporting evidence you should at least tell us what they say.

My German is school-level, not fluent, but I have a couple of German friends who can translate for me to achieve full accuracy.

I am unclear why you seem so determined to have overwhelming support for Anschluss when your own evidence tells us otherwise. One of your sources say that "perhaps as many as two-thirds of the population favored the Anschluss" while another says " Schuschnigg's estimate of two-thirds support for his plebiscite on Austrian independence was, therefore, probably correct".

In other words both these sources cancel each other out because they are both claiming 2/3 or 66% for each plebiscite!!!!!!!!!!!

This massively reinforces my point that in view of such contradictory evidence it is ridiculous to assert that support for Anschluss was "overwhelming" in 1938.

I'll say it again: I have little doubt that, all other things being equal, a clear majority of Austrians probably favoured Anschluss in 1938, but this was neither settled, nor overwhelming. Only one in six had to change their minds to reverse either result.

And that, I would suggest, is about all that the evidence so far produced here can support.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Lamarck,

I see you have written more.

Hitler never held an election. He was elected in an election called by the previous regime, but never held another one himself. His preferred option was to ban opponents, appoint deputies when seats became vacant, and to hold single-issue plebiscites.

You post, "There is no evidence that the referendum needed to be rigged....." Exactly my point, if the only aim was to gain a majority for Anschluss. However, a 66%/75%/80% (take your pick) result would have fallen below the 90% achieved in the League of Nations plebiscite in the Saarland. Anything less than 90%(?) in Austria would look like Nazism and the Anschluss movement was in retreat.

Must go,

Sid

[ljadw]

Two other proof that support for the Anschluss was overwhelming are

1) Schuschnig needed to rig his plebiscite to win (Hitler rigged it to have 99,99 % and to avoid free elections),because in a free plebiscite he would lose , while Hitler would win in a free plebiscite.

2) Schuschnigg was losing , he was a doomed man :without his plebiscite, he would not survive 1938, that's why he organized a rigged plebiscite.He had already capitulated in 1936 (July Treaty) ,in February he hoped to avoid the collapse of his regime by going to Berchtesgaden .Hitler demanded a new capitulation, which Schuschnig hoped to avoid by a rigged plebiscite that would give hil also 99,99 %;he knew that there was a danger of a German intervention, but he hoped that Mussolini would prevent this,although Mussolini warned him that the plebiscite was a bad idea .

What was the result ? The result was that the dying Austro-fascism died in a few days, while without plebiscite, it would survive a few months : at the first sign of discontent from Berlin, they all abandoned Schuschnig, the Heimwehr (Schuschnig's SA),of which a big part supported the anschluss, did not ask for weapons to fight the invader : its members were burning their uniforms while their wife was adjusting the new brown uniform .

The truth is that in February 1938 Austro-fascism was a sand castle, while the flood was goose-stepping .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Guys,

A bit more detail on the obstacles facing the entry of Austrian senior officers into the Wehrmacht from an old AHF thread of 9 January 2004:

"After the „Anschluß“ the German army was enlarged by this pool of officers, but not without any conditions. The "Muff Commission" was set up by the former German Military Attache to Austria, the later Gen. d. Inf. Muff. Austrian members were Dr. Eckinger (later Knight´s Cross and Oak leaf recipient), Gen. d. Inf. von Nagy, Gen. Maj. Glasner and Gen. Lt. Sinzinger. A lot of officers were not allowed to join the Wehrmacht (Obst. d. G. Franz Wagner, Obst. d. G. Wilhelm Neugebauer, Obst. d. G. Karl Wöhrle, Obst. d. G. Erich Oliva, Obst. d. G. Dr. Emil Liebitzky, Gen. Maj. Justus von Jahn, Gen. Maj. Rudolf Towarek), but most of the officers were transferred. Some further officers had to retire but were recalled later (for example Bornemann, who was thought to be Jewish). Some officers who had to leave the Army before because of being somewhat „German minded“ where recalled to duty (Rendulic, Wiktorin, Waber)."

and

"There are some doubts whether the Austrian Officers were integrated quickly or not ... IMO not. If you have a look at the Stellenbesetzung 01.01.1939 you can only see Wiktorin (former head of the Austrian Operations Dept.), Böhme (former head of Austrian Intelligence), Kubena (Cdr. of the Fast Division), Materna Friedrich, Feurstein, Beyer Eugen, Rendulic, Hubicki (Cdr. of the Fast Division), Martinek, Ing. Moro and Angelis in high positions. Most General Staff Colonels and Lt. Colonels not even got a Regiment although a lot of Regimental positions were held by former German police officers and some high positions were even held by German officers older than 60 years! IMO they were somewhat limited to develop, although some of them managed it during the war. The example Martinek shows that the military abilities weren´t truly examined (obviously) otherwise he would have received a position to better influence the development of the Artillery. Manstein and Guderian both mentioned him as a very special Artillery officer (how many other officers did both praise?)"

From this, it seems it was not possible for Austrian officers to enter the Wehrmacht without passing the Muff Commission, under the former German military attache, and some failed its criteria and were dismissed. Furthermore, once in the Wehrmacht it also appears that appointments were, at least initially, retarded in favour of sometimes less professionally qualified Germans.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

Did Schussnigg really need to rig his plebiscite to win any more than Hitler did? Lamarck's sources seem to imply it may be otherwise. (see above).

Secondly, I too believe that raising the voting age from 20 to 24 was sharp practice, though perhaps unnecessary. However, it might also be constitutional if the Plebiscite legislation passed with this in its text.

You write, "the Heimwehr..... did not ask for weapons to fight the invader". Firstly, it did not have to ask, as it was already issued with weapons up to machine gun size. (For instance, in Feldkirch it had three platoons armed with rifles and each platoon also had a machine gun). Secondly, the object of the Heimwehr was to oppose the local Nazis, not fight a German invasion. That was the Army's job.

============================================================================================================================

Thank you for the Panzer Leader source. So, 2nd Panzer Division remained in Vienna from March to October 1938 as an entirely German formation.

In October 1938 it then presumably received a draft of Austrian 2-year conscripts, who would have been similar in number to the remaining 2-year German conscripts. The ratio would then have been about 20% regular German cadre, 40% 2nd year German conscripts and 40% Austrian 1st year conscripts.

Only in October 1939 would a second draft of Austrian conscripts have replaced the remaining German conscripts and even then it is possible that most of the regular cadre were still Germans. Of course, the outbreak of war may well have disrupted this third stage.

Either way, for 19-20 months after the Anschluss the most powerful formation in Austria was probably either completely or predominantly German.

Furthermore, the senior Austrian infantry regiment, the senior Austrian motorized battalion, the equivalent of a three-battalion artillery regiment and some minor divisional units were sent the other way into Germany to form the core of 4th Panzer Division.

The Germans, as was established above, were particularly nervous of Vienna and moved in a major German armoured formation while simultaneously removing senior Austrian units from Vienna to Germany. It may have been unnecessary insurance, but it was insurance none the less.

============================================================================================================================

You write, ".....support for the Anschluss does not mean willingness to fight and die for the Anschluss". Isn't this double standards? You also want to use the fact that there was almost no physical Austrian resistance in 1938 to contend that this indicates an unwillingness to support Austrian independence!

Cheers,

Sid.

[Lamarck]

Hi Sid,

For example, every single ballot paper was rigged in its lay out, as detailed above. This means that 100% of votes were rigged to some degree and this is just one example of the rigging. (Read Albert Goering's description for others.)

I don't think the layout means that every single ballot paper was rigged. No one forced any Austrians to vote "Yes".

66% is still an overwhelming amount of people, it is over half of the population.

If you accept:

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 delivery the votes.

Then you should also accept:

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.

You're backpedaling, for dozens of posts you have denied that "overwhelming" is appropriate to describe the Anschluss and now you're admitting you agree with the quote:

It is not enough just to attribute to electoral manipulation the overwhelming Austrian approval of the Anschluss in 1938. Enthusiasm was widespread and genuine.

There were a variety of reasons why the population of Vienna weren't as enthusiastic as other parts of Austria. Hitler himself had contempt for the Viennesse, on April 9, 1945: "The Führer certainly has figured out the Viennese correctly. They are a repulsive bunch, consisting of a mix between Poles, Czechs, Jews, and Germans." It was necessary to "keep a tighter rein" on them".

Brigitte Hamann, Hitler's Vienna: A Portrait of the Tyrant as a Young Man, p. 87

How come you are accepting the thesis that Schuschnigg's plebiscite could have possibly got a two-third majority even though it never took place yet you are denying Hitler's plebiscite which did take place and showed a 99.73% approval? You have also still not replied to how you think Schuschnigg's plebiscite would have been anymore fairer than Hitler's plebiscite?

You're failing to realise that the Austrians felt differently before the Anschluss took place and how they reacted and felt after it took place and voted in the referendum. After the plebiscite was cancelled "helps to explain why there occurred such an astonishing outpouring of euphoria and support for the new Greater Germany".

Well since it's clear that you dismiss the result of the Austrian referendum because it was rigged, what other evidence will you accept to prove that an overwhelming majority of Austrians approved of the Anschluss?

However, it is simply a non-sequitur to somehow suggest that because the Austrian referendum was rigged that there was not genuine approval for the Anschluss. So were all those thousands upon thousands of Austrians who listened to Hitler proclaim the Anschluss on the Heldenplatz, Vienna, on 15 March 1938 just simply there because they disapproved? Have you listened to the Austrians reaction after Hitler said: "As leader and chancellor of the German nation and Reich I announce to German history now the entry of my homeland into the German Reich."?

[Lamarck]

You said: "Hitler never held an election. He was elected in an election called by the previous regime, but never held another one himself. His preferred option was to ban opponents, appoint deputies when seats became vacant, and to hold single-issue plebiscites."

That is not true. Hitler did hold elections during the Third Reich. There were elections held in November 1933, March 1936 and April 1938.

[ljadw]

Schuschnig would lose in a fair referendum, because there were more people supporting the Anschluss than there were people supporting Austrian independence :socialists, German nationalists and a big part of the Austro-fascists supported the Anschluss : there had been in 1931 already an attempted putsch in Styria by a part of the Heimwehr and there were contacts between Heimwehr chef Fey and the nazis .

Second reason why Schuschnigg would lose in a fair referendum was that that the referendum would be a big settling of accounts : Austrofascism had failed : there were still 600000 + unemployed , while unemployment had disappeared in Germany . Imagine 6 million unemployed in Britain or 33 million in the US .

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

Did Schussnigg really need to rig his plebiscite to win any more than Hitler did?



Either way, for 19-20 months after the Anschluss the most powerful formation in Austria was probably either completely or predominantly German.

Furthermore, the senior Austrian infantry regiment, the senior Austrian motorized battalion, the equivalent of a three-battalion artillery regiment and some minor divisional units were sent the other way into Germany to form the core of 4th Panzer Division.



============================================================================================================================

You write, ".....support for the Anschluss does not mean willingness to fight and die for the Anschluss". Isn't this double standards? You also want to use the fact that there was almost no physical Austrian resistance in 1938 to contend that this indicates an unwillingness to support Austrian independence!

Cheers,

Sid.

1) Most Austrians supported the Anschluss and opposed Schuschnig

2 ) That's not correct : correct is that most divisions in Austria were "Austrian "divisions : 44 ID (Vienna ), 45 ID (Linz), 2 Mountain (Innsbruck), 3 Mountain (Graz), 4 Light (Vienna ), later St.Pölten

3) No : these divisions did not form the core of 4Pz, but a part of 4 Pz .

After the Anschluss 3 new AC were created : 17, 18 and 19 .

17 : 44 and 45 ID

18 : 2 and 3 Mountain

19 2 Pz and later light .

That 1st IR was the senior IR means nothing : it is not proving that it was stronger than the other IRs

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Lamarck,

You write, "I don't think the layout means that every single ballot paper was rigged." You clearly haven't looked at the lay out of the ballot paper.

You write, "No one forced any Austrians to vote "Yes"." You ought to read the description of the ballot process by Albert Goering (Herman's brother) to see how difficult it was to vote secretly for most people.

So yes, 100% of votes cast were tainted by a rigged ballot paper and lack of a secret ballot for most Austrians made dissent difficult.

Yes, 66% is over half the population, that is self evident. However, it is not "overwhelming" as it would take only 1 in 6 voters to vote differently to change the outcome.

I don't have to accept either. My point is that there is no hard evidence as to exactly what the Austrian people felt in early 1938 because one plebiscite was never held, one was heavily rigged and there exist no reputable public surveys of national opinion. All we have have is estimates, which seem to epostulate a pro Anschluss majority of about 66%, according to your offered sources. The problem is that your offered sources also indicate that Schussnigg's pro-independence plebiscite might also have got 66%.

This implies that as much as a third of the electorate was undecided or of no strong sentiment either way.

Given this, it defies the little evidence there is to suggest that support for Anschluss was "overwhelming".

What backpedalling? Enthusiasm was widespread and genuine. It is whether it was "overwhelming " that is in question.

And electoral manipulation was not the only reason for the overwhelming Austrian approval of the Anschluss in 1938. The rigged Nazi plebiscite was 99% in favour (which is an overwhelming result, as I have posted before - and also highly improbable), but this was not only achieved by electoral manipulation. The estimates of your source are that 66% of these votes may have accurately reflected opinion, leaving electoral manipulation as possibly responsible for the remaining 33%.

You post, "How come you are accepting the thesis that Schuschnigg's plebiscite could have possibly got a two-third majority even though it never took place...." I am not. My point is that, because it never took place, we don't know how it would have turned out, but your sources estimate it might have passed with perhaps a 66% majority. This serves to illustrate my point that the real state of Austrian public opinion is difficult to define, was not necessarily settled and makes inexcusable claims for "overwhelming" support for Anschluss.

You post, "You have also still not replied to how you think Schuschnigg's plebiscite would have been anymore fairer than Hitler's plebiscite?" I didn't say it would or wouldn't have. The reason is that, because it never took place, we cannot know either way or to what degree. However, we do know for a hard fact that the Nazi plebiscite was heavily rigged and how.

You post, "You're failing to realize that the Austrians felt differently before the Anschluss took place and how they reacted and felt after it took place and voted in the referendum." Exactly my point - Austrian public opinion may have been changeable. Thank you for recognizing this. If it was, indeed, so changeable, this reinforces my point that it was not settled and cast more doubt on the proposition that support for Anschluss was "overwhelming".

One is just left wondering why, amidst all this apparent "astonishing outpouring of euphoria and support for the new Greater Germany" the Nazis felt the need to so blatantly rig their plebiscite? It rather looks as though the extent of "the euphoria and support for the new Greater Germany" wasn't quite what the Nazis were hoping for.

You ask, "Well since it's clear that you dismiss the result of the Austrian referendum because it was rigged, what other evidence will you accept to prove that an overwhelming majority of Austrians approved of the Anschluss?" That is up to you to provide. I don't want the result of this enquiry to go either way. I just want any credible hard evidence available.

By the way, do you accept the 99% Anschluss referendum result as unrigged and an accurate reflection of the scale of Austrian support for Anschluss?

You post, "However, it is simply a non-sequitur to somehow suggest that because the Austrian referendum was rigged that there was not genuine approval for the Anschluss.". Yup, it is. That is why have never made that case.

You ask, "So were all those thousands upon thousands of Austrians who listened to Hitler proclaim the Anschluss on the Heldenplatz, Vienna, on 15 March 1938 just simply there because they disapproved?" For the most part, I doubt it, but what about the millions of Austrians who did not attend? What were all their motives for staying away?

You post: "Hitler did hold elections during the Third Reich. There were elections held in November 1933, March 1936 and April 1938." Elections require a choice. These were not elections as all opposition parties had been banned and there was only a single list of Nazi candidates or their fellow travelers to vote for.

Cheers,

Sid