Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Lamarck,

Yup, ".....discussion about the Anschluss is pretty much inevitable", and we have been engaged in it for over a month.

In posting, ".....historians do generally agree that with or without the Nazis, a clear majority of Austrians would have voted for the Anschluss in 1938" you are adopting exactly my position. Which makes me wonder what we are arguing about!

I also see no reason to dispute the Bukey quote, "And yet, while it is unlikely that Austrians would have given Nazi candidates sufficient support to bring them to power under democratic or even semidemocratic conditions, there can be no doubt that most of the populace looked favorably on a merger with Germany, even under Hitler's leadership." (My underlining)

I have little doubt that most Austrians would have welcomed the success of German arms even from outside the Reich, especially as they were over the victors of 1914-18.

You post, "There is not a single incident in all of the time that the Ostmark existed because of the Anschluss that a movement even existed that supported the independence of Austria." Well, given that, (according to Bukey p.37) the Nazis brought in ".....some 40,000 German security police" and that "Exactly how many Austrians landed in Gestapo custody, fell prey to abuse or murder, or passed through concentration camps in early 1938 has never been determined, but at least 20,000 persons were seized or arrested", it need surprise nobody that this was so. As Bukey goes on, "Whatever the number, it was sufficient both to delight and intimidate the populace."

Your Bukey quote, "overwhelming majority' of Austrians also supported the Nazi social and racial policies" has been selectively edited, because he goes on ".....anti-German sentiment intensified sharply throughout July and August" 1939. This puts rather a different spin on what you are contending.

Must go. Back soon.

Sid

[Sid Guttridge]

You post, "I have never actually managed to get an answer from you, the Schussnigg's independence vote that could possibly have gained the support of two-thirds of the Austrian population would also have been rigged and never happened so it is totally irrelevant, so why are you so willing to rely on the idea that Schussnigg's proposal of an independent Austria would have legitimately gained two-thirds of the populace as a mere fact yet you ignore the Nazi plebiscite result because it was just simply rigged and according to you Nazi propaganda?"

Firstly, it was your source that proposed Schussnigg's independence plebiscite might have gained a 66% majority, not mine.

Secondly, Schussnigg's plebiscite is hardly "totally irrelevant". Hitler thought it so relevant he invaded Austria to prevent it.

Thirdly, whilst Schussnigg's referendum was likely to be a less than perfect democratic exercise, this is a reasonable assumption, not a hard fact, as in the case of the Nazi plebiscite.

Nor could it have been as badly skewed as the Nazi plebiscite because the resources were not there to do so. The Nazis had the resources of a country of 65 million people (not to mention those of the Austrian state) to throw at it, and did so. (See p.35 of Bukey for the scale of economic, material and financial transfers to Austria between the occupation and the plebiscite).

All said and done, any estimates of the likely state of Austrian public opinion at the time of Schussnigg's independence plebiscite have exactly the same validity as for those of the likely real state of Austrian public opinion at the time of the Nazi plebiscite a month later. In the absence of (1) any Schussnigg independence plebiscite at all, (2) an outrageously rigged Nazi plebiscite and (3) the absence of any other reliable national statistics, all are just a matter of more or less informed opinion, not hard facts. It is thus as legitimate to refer to opinions about the likely outcome of the Schussnigg independence plebiscite as it is to any others.

Despite all of the outbursts of genuine support and enthusiasm that actually happened when the Anschluss took place, you have dismissed firsthand accounts of the genuine approval of the Anschluss by referring to the Schussnigg plebiscite.

You post, "Your arguments against the notion that an overwhelming majority of Austrians supported the Anschluss is non-existent." Yup, because I am not making arguments against it. I am simply questioning it. It is up to you to make a substantive case that this was so, not me to prove otherwise. If you cannot substantiate your proposition then it automatically fall. As things stand, you haven't made such a substantive case. Even your best source, Bukey, doesn't say that Austrian support for Anschluss was "overwhelming".

You post, "By the way, there is no word called "overwhelmingism"." Yup, I invented it, which is why I put it in inverted commas! However, it is useful here as shorthand for your "overwhelmingist" proposition.

You post, "The problem is with you is that every single bit of evidence that clearly indicates an overwhelming majority of Austrians supported the Anschluss is not good enough for you because it's neither a plebiscite result nor in compliance with your belief that the Schussnigg plebiscite was legitimate and represented what most Austrians really thought." Yup, because such "evidence" tends to fail on examination.

You post, "I have come to the conclusion that no amount of evidence will ever be considered as hard enough evidence for you because it is not a free plebiscite result that shows over seventy-five percent of Austrians voted for the Anschluss, am I right?" Nope.

You post, "The reason I'm quite determined to include the word 'overwhelming' before majority is because the word 'majority' can mean even just as little as a 'tiny majority' since it essentially means 'the greater number'." My proposition is none of these, it is of a plausible clear majority of indeterminable magnitude.

Must go again,

Siod.

[Lamarck]

We are arguing Sid because you either are purposely ignoring the different definitions of 'overwhelming' or you are being disingenuous. There is no difference in meaning between a 'great majority' or an 'overwhelming majority'.

You underlined "most" - as a determiner it means 'greatest in amount or degree', how is that any different to 'overwhelming'?

I have already admitted that there were various Nazi techniques to belittle any sort of opposition but whereas other Nazi policies were largely disapproved of and there were groups that opposed them, the same cannot be said for the Anschluss. The "Ostmark" was endorsed by both Austrians and Reich Germans in 1938.

I have not 'selectively edited' anything, Austrian antisemitism was more intense than German antisemitism.



There is a great deal of evidence that clearly explains how embedded antisemitism was in Austria and the terror that was unleashed following the Anschluss.

Gershon Evan, an Austrian Jew whose parents were arrested and killed by the Nazis, recalled during a television broadcast yesterday how quickly racial persecution took hold in Vienna, a city in which every 10th citizen was then Jewish. "What happened in Germany over five years, happened in Vienna in five days," he said. "We had no idea that we would face such violence."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 95016.html

I also recommend you to read Bukey's book Jews and Intermarriage in Nazi Austria.

I've already posted that there was anti-German/Prussian feeling during the Anschluss.

Do you accept that Schuschnigg's proposal would also have been rigged?

Also, when mentioning the probability that could have got two-thirds of Austrians to vote in favour of his proposal in a plebiscite, it is crucial to also relate this to:

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.

Schuschnigg's plebiscite is totally irrelevant in the sense that it never happened and it would also have been rigged so to be fair if you are to cancel out the Nazi's plebiscite result then you would also have to cancel out Schuschnigg's plebiscite alleged two-thirds approval as well.

The two key differences between Schuschnigg's probability of gaining two-thirds of the Austrian approval and the Nazis claiming that 99.71% of Austrians voted in favour of the Anschluss is that firstly the former never actually happened and secondly the latter happened is regarded as the general feeling of the Austrians due to the overall enthusiasm and genuine support that happened in 1938; granted that the turnout might not have been the exact same as the Nazis claimed it to have been but most historians state that the majority of Austrians would have approved of the Anschluss with or without the Nazis. Bukey explains perfectly well that the support for the Anschluss did not mean support for the Nazis. The Nazis failed to win over the majority of the Austrian working class.

Although there are no statistics that can be regarded as 'free' to support any percentage, historians use a wide variety of sources for evidence. I have also mentioned that other sources are available e.g Otmar Jung quotes assessments from the Deutschland-Berichte der Sopade which ran between 1934-1940.

I have already provided more than enough evidence, for example I quoted:

Although there were irregularities, LIFE in 1938 acknowledged that the results of the referendum and its German counterpart were "largely honest". Some postwar accounts claim that the poll was rigged, but there is no evidence that this was necessary. The result was "... the outcome of opportunism, ideological conviction, massive pressure, occasional vote rigging and a propaganda machine that Austria's political culture had never before experienced."

Your only rebuttal is referring to the Schuschnigg's plebiscite which did not happen and also would have been rigged.

Well, as we both know there are no available statistics and I have given you other forms of evidence, what do you accept as 'hard evidence'?

[ljadw]

Margaret Ball gives in "Post-war German -Austrian relations " the following estimate in 1933 :

Support for Dollfuss : 30 %

Support for the Socialists : 30 %

Support for the Nazis : 40 %

But it is a fact that 5 years later the support for the government had collapsed to the advantage of the nazis .

An other historical fact is that the support for the Anschluss was always much higher than the support for the nazis .

[ljadw]

The Austrian historian Florian Wenninger said the following : "In Wien war seit Ende 1937 klar dass das Regime von Schuschnigg keine Zukunft mehr haben wird ."

It was clear in Vienna at the end of 1937 that the Schuschnigg regime had no longer any future .

The result was that the rats were leaving the sinking ship .

[Lamarck]

Schuschnigg's plebiscite would have been as rigged as the Nazis' result in the referendum. Eugene Davidson wrote in his book The Trial of the Germans: Account of the Twenty-two Defendants Before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg on p. 214:

When, a few weeks after the signing of the agreement, the Austrian Chancellor called the ill-fated and ill-planned plebiscite, which he intended to be a great public affirmation of confidence in his policies, he supplied the prextect for the Anschluss the Fuehrer was waiting for. The voting was clearly rigged: Only those over twenty-five could vote, thus excluding the youth who were the mainstays of Nazi strength. The plebiscite was to be held four days after it was announced. It would be as almost as hard to vote "No" as it was in Nazi Germany.

Again, Anthony Read's book The Devil's Disciples on p. 456:

The referendum was in breach of German-Austrian agreements and, according to Göring, heavily rigged: 'Every person could vote as often as he wanted, five times, six times, seven times. if he tore up the slip of paper, that was counted as “yes”, and so on . . . That whole thing was a farce.' Goring's assumptions may or may not have been correct, but Austria's electoral rolls were certainly several years out of date, disenfranchising everyone under the age of twenty-four. There could be little doubt that the referendum would result in a massive 'yes' vote, which would completely undermine Nazi claims that the majority of Austrians wanted union with Germany.

Johannes Steinhoff, ‎Peter Pechel wrote a book Voices from the Third Reich: an oral history which is based on:

More than 150 Germans contributed to this fascinating oral history of the Second World War, which gives first-hand accounts of what it was like to watch and participate in the rise of Hitler, to endure the peril of the seas in a U-boat, to fight and watch men die, and to suffer through bombings at Dresden and Hamburg.

The book details the Anschluss in detail, on p. 95:

"An overwhelming majority of the Austrian population voted for the Anschluss." Today, people claim that Austria was the first victim of Hitler's politics, that Austria was raped by Germany. That's not true. As early as 1919-20, parts of Austria held plebiscites. An overwhelming majority of the population, an average of 95 percent, voted for Anschluss...

Unfortunately the book is only available on Google books as a snippet view. I will buy the book and post the full text as soon as possible.

The available evidence clearly confirms that Schuschnigg's plebiscite, whatever the result, would have been as rigged as Hitler's.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Lamarck,

I would suggest that there very definitely is a difference between a "great majority" and an "overwhelming majority". Just as a "great majority" is a more extreme subset of a "clear majority", so an "overwhelming majority" is a more extreme subset of a "great majority".

"Most" simply means more than half. 50.00001% is "most". "Overwhelming" implies very much more than just over half. It implies that the majority was so numerous that it absolutely swamped the minority.

While you are not entirely consistent in this, what we appear to be disagreeing about is how extreme the evidence shows the Austrian support for Anschluss was. I am suggesting that all we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty is that it is likely that, all other things being equal, a "clear majority" of Austrians favoured Anschluss. However, you favour a more extreme "overwhelming majority", but without any substantive evidence.

I appreciate that because of prevailing circumstances such substantive evidence appears not to exist. But that is precisely why it is unsupportable to claim that Austrian support was "overwhelming". The hard evidence simply doesn't exist for such an extreme claim.

I am sorry, but when one edits something in such a way as to change its significance, that is being selective.

I don't know why you have diverted onto Austrian anti-Semitism. It is not something I have raised.

As I have said before, it is entirely possible, even probable, that Schussnigg's referendum would have been rigged to some indeterminable degree. However, while it is "possible, even probable", it never took place, so we cannot be certain to what degree. On the other hand, we can be pretty sure that it would have been far less rigged than the Nazi plebiscite actually was, as the Nazi plebiscite was rigged absolutely outrageously with resources not available to Schussnigg!

No. Schussnigg's plebiscite, which the Nazis were so afraid of that they invaded, and the Nazi plebiscite, which the Nazis were so unconfident of that they rigged it outrageously, are not equal and opposite.

Nor, I should point out, does your source that opines that Schussnigg's plebiscite might have got 66% for continued Austrian independence, seem to say that this would be because it was rigged. (However, as you have the source, not me, perhaps you could clarify that point.)

As I have pointed out before, simply regurgitating the fact that there were large enthusiastic crowds who came out to support the Nazis tells us only that there were large enthusiastic crowds who supported the Nazis. As Bukey says on p.33 when discussing these enthusuiastic crowds, "How many tears were shed behind closed doors is impossible to say." Bukey on p.29 says "between 60,000 and 80,000 Austrians roared their approval" when Hitler appeared on the Rathaus balcony in Linz. If true, this is "only" between a third and a half of the population of the the home town of Hitler's youth!

As I have analogized before, large enthusiastic cowds turn out to watch victorious British football teams tour the League and FA Cups through the streets, but this doesn't mean that most of the population, who support other teams, turn out to cheer!

You keep referring to the LIFE magazine article. This still says nothing about Austrian support for Anschluss being "overwhelming", however many times you repeat it. It also doesn't say that the Nazi referendum wasn't rigged. It just says that rigging wasn't necessary. This is my oft repeated point.

It is plausible that there was a clear majority in favour of Anschluss, yet the Nazis still outrageously rigged everything around their plebiscite - invading the country with their army, bringing in tens of thousands of German security police, arresting tens of thousands of opponents, reducing the voting age back to 20, bribing the electorate (Bukey p.35), skewing every single ballot paper, encouraging open rather than secret ballots, etc., etc. This certainly produced a very "overwhelming" result indeed in favour of Anschluss - 99%+!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Lamarck,

You post, "Only those over the age of 25 could vote....." as a criticism of the fairness of the Schussnigg plebiscite. Actually, 24 was the voting age under the then Austrian Constitution. It was not raised by Schussnigg specifically for the plebiscite. If anything, it was the Nazis who rigged the voting age for their later plebiscite by reducing it back to 20!

Goering, who was the prime architect of the occupation of Austria, is hardly a trusted source in the circumstances. Indeed, he is not endorsed by your source who says that "Goering's assumptions may or may not have been correct".

And no, the evidence does not clearly confirm that Schussnigg's plebiscite would have been as rigged as Hitler's. Schussnigg simply did not have the resources available that Hitler actually used (1) to prevent Schussnigg's plebiscite and (2) to rig his own plebiscite, so that proposition is obviously ridiculous!

Cheers,

Sid.

[Lamarck]

Hi Sid,

The definition of a 'majority' when it comes to an election is simply the one with the most votes. Even if the Nazis had only gained a little more than half it would still have been a majority. I'm sure you are aware that the Nazis never gained a majority (enough votes) in Germany before Hitler was appointed in 1933.

There is literally no difference between a 'clear majority' and an 'overwhelming majority', both refer to the greater amount.

The use of 'overwhelming' is not "extreme", I am simply claiming and there is evidence which you are purposely ignoring that the vast majority of Austrians were in favour of the Anschluss. Prior to 1945, most Austrians considered themselves Germans and wanted Austria to be part of Germany, why is there any reason to doubt the genuine approval of most Austrians in 1938? After the war many Austrians sought comfort in trying to portray the idea that Austria was a "victim" of the Nazi regime, the myth was debunked a long time ago.

Basically, you are making the absurd assumption that because there is no genuine plebiscite result of 1938, no one can be entirely sure of how many Austrians were in favour of the Anschluss? There is no genuine plebiscite showing how many Germans approved of Hitler merging Chancellor and President as "Leader" (Führer), are you therefore suggesting that the overwhelming majority of Germans in 1934 did not support Hitler? The lack of a genuine plebiscite result doesn't really change much, there is almost always other available evidence.

You claimed that I carefully selected a sentence which Bukey wrote about the Austrians approving of the Nazi social and racial policies, again, this is confirmed by plenty of evidence. The Austrians were often worse than the Reich Germans.

I can't believe that you're trying to claim that Schussnigg's plebiscite would have been anymore legitimate as Hitler's plebiscite.

Schussnigg was the person who changed the voting age to twenty-four as a way to stop Nazi sympathisers from voting "No". Schuschnigg actually copied the Nazi technique of rigging plebiscites.

Jürgen Gehl in his book Austria, Germany, and the Anschluss, 1931-1938, on p. 185 wrote:

As the British Ambassaor in Berlin commented, 'both in the wording of the question and in the manner in which the plebiscite was to be carried through, Schuschnigg seemed to have taken a leaf out of the Nazi book'. The arrangements indeed left room for considerable doubt on the impartiality of the plebiscite. The voting age of twenty-four excluded those who for the most part formed the rank and file of the Nazi movement. No party elections had been held in Austria since 1930.

Gordon Brook-Shepherd in his book The Austrians: A Thousand-year Odyssey on p. 312 wrote:

The eligible voting age, for example, had been raised to twenty-four in order to exclude a youthful population who had been heavily infiltrated with Nazi ideology.

David Faber in his book Munich, 1938: Appeasement and World War II on p. 122 wrote:

In an effort to leave nothing to chance, Schuschnigg also took a leaf out of the Nazis' own electoral handbook. The brief interval before the plebiscite was due to take place would ensure that the startled Nazis had little time to prepare, especially in the mountainous provinces where they would be electorally strong. The electoral register was not up-to-date, the most recent elections having been held in 1930; the minimum voting age was set at twenty-four, thus excluding large numbers of young Nazis; and only "yes" ballot papers, with the Austrian red-white-red stripes on both sides, were to be issued—if you wanted to vote "no,", you had to bring your own ballot paper. Although Seyss-Inquart was able to persuade Schuschnigg to modify some of these regulations, the Austrian Nazis still believed that the plebiscite would be rigged. Schuschnigg also asked Mussolini to support the plebiscite, but received the curt reply "C'è un errore! [It's a mistake"]".

Dietrich Orlow in his book A History of Modern Germany: 1871 to Present wrote:

It was, to be sure, a rigged election. For example, the Austrian voting age was raised from twenty-one to twenty-five just for the plebiscite to keep many younger Nazi sympathizers from casting ballots. Nevertheless, the outcome of the election might not have supported the German Nazis' contention that the overwhelming majority of Austrians were long to "come home to the Reich."

So yes Sid, there was absolutely no difference between the rigging of Schuschnigg's plebiscite and Hitler's plebiscite. Both were determined to show that the overwhelming majority of Austrians supported their beliefs.

Schuschnigg's plebiscite might have shown that at that time two-thirds of a rigged plebiscite wanted Austria to remain independent, this does not contradict the notion that when the Anschluss was happening, the majority of Austrians approved of the Anschluss and that a month or so later the overwhelming majority endorsed the annexation of Austria for a variety of reasons.

I have also told you time and time again, not every single Austrian who approved of the Anschluss needed to show their face in the streets. The very fact that thousands upon thousands did is clear evidence that there was enthusiasm for the Germans who crossed the borders, not disapproval. There is clear evidence of Germans showing disapproval of Nazi policies, why is this not the case for the Anschluss? There were no groups or movements during the war that called for the return of an independent Austria, on the contrary, the overwhelming majority of Germans supported the existence of the Ostmark and other areas that annexed as being part of the Reich.

I think it's very dishonest of you to keep using the word "plausible" when even people like Bukey who have used other forms of evidence have demonstrated that a majority did support the Anschluss. Not only did they support the actual annexing of Austria but also supported the Nazi racial and social policies.

Göring simply gave his opinion about Schuschnigg's rigging, this does not change the fact that Schuschnigg had plans to carry out a rigged plebiscite to show the Nazis that the overwhelming majority of Austrians supported Austria to be independent.

When I think about the fact that you have decided to invent a word like "overwhelmingism", I'm going to be more reluctant to believe that you are being sincere when trying to disapprove the definition of certain words.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Lamarck,

You post, “The definition of a majority is simply the one with the most votes”. Yup. I think we all know that. Your point is?

You post “There is literally no difference between a “clear majority” and an “overwhelming majority” “. Errrr, NO! A clear majority simply requires that the winning side has a clear lead that is greater than any margin of error and therefore the outcome cannot be reasonably challenged. It is reasonable to believe that this was the case regarding Anschluss in Austria in early 1938.

However, how large the margin was in favour of Anschluss is so far impossible to establish through lack of hard evidence. In the absence of this, it is not safe, or even necessary, to say more than that there was plausibly a clear majority of Austrians in favour of Anschluss. This is quite enough to legitimise the process.

An overwhelming majority is so large that it absolutely swamps the opposition. This appears to be your position. Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to establish this. You simply offer a few opinions that are directly contradicted by other opinions. Indeed, the source you regard as the best available, Bukey, nowhere says anything about “overwhelming”.

You post, “…..most Austrians considered themselves Germans and wanted Austria to be part of Germany, why is there any reason to doubt the genuine approval of most Austrians in 1938?” There isn’t. It is entirely plausible, as I have posted many times. As you posted “The definition of a majority is simply the one with the most votes.” If just 50.001% of Austrians wanted Anschluss this amounted to “most”. However, such a marginal “most” is very different from “overwhelming”.

You post, “Basically, you are making the absurd assumption that because there is no genuine plebiscite result of 1938, no one can be entirely sure of how many Austrians were in favour of Anschluss.” Absurd? Not only was there no genuine plebiscite, but we seem to have no national opinion polls for the period either. How can anyone be “entirely sure” of anything in these circumstance? We are in the realms of conflicting opinions, partial (in both senses) information, and more or less informed guesswork, which makes any claim beyond that a clear majority of Austrians were in favour of Anschluss questionable. – and the more extreme such claims, the more questionable they become.

So, a BIG FAT YES to the proposition that “…..because there is no genuine plebiscite result of 1938, no one can be entirely sure of how many Austrians were in favour of Anschluss.” If you are “entirely sure”, please put either a number or a percentage on it. You won’t, of course, because you know this to be true.

You post that I claimed you “carefully selected a sentence which Bukey…..” I don’t know how carefully you did it, but yes, I do accuse you of selective editing. I repeat what I said earlier:

Your Bukey quote, "overwhelming majority' of Austrians also supported the Nazi social and racial policies" has been selectively edited, because he goes on ".....anti-German sentiment intensified sharply throughout July and August" 1939. This puts rather a different spin on what you are contending.

You say, “I can’t believe that you’re trying to claim that Schussnigg’s plebiscite would have been any more legitimate as Hitler’s plebiscite” Well, we do know for a fact that the Nazis threw far more resources at their plebiscite than Schussnigg had available. For example, they brought in a foreign army of occupation, followed by 40,000 German security police who arrested tens of thousands of opponents before their plebiscite (see Bukey). None of this could have happened under Schussnigg in March 1938 because such massive alien repressive resources were unavailable to him. Thus, while the legitimacy of both referenda is in question, the legitimacy of the Nazi one is far more so.

NOPE, it is not true that “Schussnigg was the person who changed the voting age to twenty-four”, and NO, it was not specifically “to stop Nazi sympathizers from voting “No”. “ Apparently the voting age was returned from 20 to the pre-1919 voting age of 24 under the 1934 Constitution. This was introduced by Dolfuss (Schussnigg’s predecessor, who was murdered by the Nazis in a particularly callous manner) after the February 1934 fighting with the Communists. It was not specifically directed against the Nazis and was certainly not done with an unforeseen 1938 plebiscite in mind. The reason why there had been no additions to the electoral rolls in the four years up to 1938 was presumably to conform with this reduction in the voting age by four years. Schussnigg was at least acting constitutionally regarding voting age for his plebiscite.

By contrast, the Nazis lowered the voting age back to 20 specifically for their plebiscite. They did so for the reason you state – younger people were more likely to be Nazi supporters.

Yup. As the British Ambassador opined, the arrangements for Schussnigg’s plebiscite “left room for doubt on the impartiality of the plebiscite”. This doesn’t sound too promising until one compares it with the actual practice of the Nazi plebiscite, which left absolutely no doubt as to its enormous partiality!

As I understand it, the voting ages were not, as your source Orlow says, “twenty-one and twenty-five”, but 20 and 24. But that is to quibble.

On the other hand, Orlow does say, according to you, “Nevertheless, the outcome of the election (presumably Schussnigg’s plebiscite?) might not have supported the German Nazis’ contention that the overwhelming majority of Austrians were long(ing?) to “come home to the Reich”. So, it appears Orlow is also not an “overwhelmingist”, but the Nazis were. And that, as I have suggested to you before, is probably why they outrageously rigged a plebiscite that they were likely to win fairly – to give an “overwhelming” result in their favour.

You post, “…..not every single Austrian who approved of the Anschluss needed to show their face in the streets”. True, but nor can we presume that any of the majority who appear not to have gone onto the streets to welcome Hitler were his supporters either, or that they contributed to any notional “overwhelming” majority. You seem to want to use both presence on the streets and absence from the streets to indicate support for Hitler and the Anschluss. That would make 100% support for Anschluss - even better than the Nazis achieved with a massively rigged plebiscite!

Again, you mention the “thousands upon thousands” of people who enthusiastically welcomed the German invasion. Yet in Linz your own favoured source, Bukey, says that only a minority of the population of this, the hometown of Hitler’s youth, turned out to show that support. We simply don’t know what the majority were doing or feeling, so it is ridiculous to claim that the minority crowds that did turn out in Linz and Vienna prove “overwhelming” support for either Anschluss or the Nazis.

You post, “Schussnigg’s plebiscite might have shown that at that time two-thirds of a rigged plebiscite wanted Austria to remain independent, this does not contradict the notion that when the Anschluss was happening, the majority of Austrians approved to the Anschluss….” I can live with that.

However, you have yet to offer any substantive evidence for the next bit “…..and that a month or so later an overwhelming majority endorsed the annexation of Austria for a variety of reasons.”, unless the “variety of reasons” concerned include the massive rigging of the whole Nazi plebiscite exercise!

You post, “I think it is very dishonest of you to keep using the word “plausible”…..” Well, the alternative is “implausible”, which I don’t believe to be true. Now that would be dishonest.

You say, “…..even people like Bukey who have used other forms of evidence have demonstrated that a majority did support the Anschluss” Firstly, I also would be one of those people, as I have told you many, many times here and, secondly, it is precisely people like Bukey who make this “plausible”. What Bukey doesn’t say is that support for Anschluss was “overwhelming”.

Answer this – do you think it plausible that a majority of Austrians supported Anschluss? Your answer has to be yes. You cannot support an “overwhelming majority” if you don’t think a majority is plausible in the first place.

Your objection to my invention of the word “overwhelmingism” as shorthand to describe the position you and the Nazis share is silly. I think I understand the Nazis’ motivation for wanting an "overwhelming" result, but yours remains a mystery to me.

Why do you so badly need Austrian support for Anschluss to have been overwhelming when everyone seems agreed that a clear majority almost certainly existed and that this was quite sufficient to legitimize the Anschluss project?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Lamarck]

NOPE, it is not true that “Schussnigg was the person who changed the voting age to twenty-four”, and NO, it was not specifically “to stop Nazi sympathizers from voting “No”. “ Apparently the voting age was returned from 20 to the pre-1919 voting age of 24 under the 1934 Constitution. This was introduced by Dolfuss (Schussnigg’s predecessor, who was murdered by the Nazis in a particularly callous manner) after the February 1934 fighting with the Communists. It was not specifically directed against the Nazis and was certainly not done with an unforeseen 1938 plebiscite in mind. The reason why there had been no additions to the electoral rolls in the four years up to 1938 was presumably to conform with this reduction in the voting age by four years. Schussnigg was at least acting constitutionally regarding voting age for his plebiscite.

Sid, please do provide some sources for your statements which contradict the quotes I have used about Schuschnigg's rigging techniques, specifically the voting age and the reason he changed it was to stop Nazi sympathisers from voting "No".

Yup. As the British Ambassador opined, the arrangements for Schussnigg’s plebiscite “left room for doubt on the impartiality of the plebiscite”. This doesn’t sound too promising until one compares it with the actual practice of the Nazi plebiscite, which left absolutely no doubt as to its enormous partiality!

Are you even reading properly what I am quoting?

only "yes" ballot papers, with the Austrian red-white-red stripes on both sides, were to be issued—if you wanted to vote "no,", you had to bring your own ballot paper.

This technique was no different to the Nazi rigging of a massive "No". In fact, at least with the Nazi ballot paper there actually was a "No" on the same paper, Schuschnigg decided that anyone who wanted to vote "No" had to bring their own paper, One could argue that Hitler's plebiscite was more fair in that sense and less rigged.

A simple question as well, do you agree that the outcome of Schuschnigg's plebiscite would have been rigged as well?

[Lamarck]

I acknowledge that I should have used a better word than "changed". I should have used "set", he purposely used the age twenty-four that had been passed in the Austrian Constitution in 1934.

Sid, have you even bothered to read about the Austrian Constitution?

The whole plebiscite was a sham. There had been no federal elections since 1929 and no general elections since 1932 and since 1933 because of Dolfuss general elections were prohibited, thus there were no voter lists in Austria in 1938. These facts also lend credibility to Göring's testimony regarding the legitimacy of Schuschnigg plebiscite.

However, Schuschnigg violated the Austrian Constitution in a few ways. Acording to Article 65, he should have told his group of ministers about the referendum which he did not. He also said that only the Fatherland Front would count the votes. Finally, he used the Austrian Constitution as a way of limiting the voting age to twenty-four because he knew the Nazis relied on the youth.

Section 22 of the referendum said:

A ballot . . . with 'Yes' printed or written on one side is valid, even if the word is crossed out or if there are other words alongside it. Also partially torn pieces of paper with 'Yes' printed or written on them count as yes-votes. Those persons who wish to vote 'No' must, according to the above regulation, write 'No' by hand on a piece of paper of the same size. Pieces of paper containing the word "No" along with some additional words are invalid. Completely empty ballots count as yes-votes . . . .

Do you really think Schuschnigg was going to be conducting a plebiscite in anymore of a fairer manner than Hitler? At least the latter issued a ballot paper with "Yes" and "No".

The Austrian Constitution had been corrupted thoroughly by the Fatherland Party; nevertheless, Schuschnigg simply acted in 'accordance' with the Austrian Constitution when it came to the voting age of the referendum. However, he did that for a reason - to stop younger voters from voting "No". There was no other reason.

Schuschnigg took as his direct authorization the second article, which gave the Federal Chancellor power to lay down the overall lines of national policy, arguing that he could also submit to the people any major issue under this heading. At the same time, he retained the operating provisions of the earlier article, which fixed the minimum voting age at 24, and thus excluded all of the country's Nazi-infested youth.

Gordon Brook-Shepherd, Anschluss: The Rape of Austria, p. 119

Given that those under twenty-four years of age were disfranchised, to exclude the generally Nazi-supporting student population, Hitler had grounds for concern that the vote would not go Germany's way.

Michael Burleigh, Moral Combat: A History of World War II, p. 33

[Lamarck]

However, how large the margin was in favour of Anschluss is so far impossible to establish through lack of hard evidence. In the absence of this, it is not safe, or even necessary, to say more than that there was plausibly a clear majority of Austrians in favour of Anschluss. This is quite enough to legitimise the process.

I have not read a single book that stated less than a clear majority wanted the Anschluss. Do you have any sources? Even Bukey clearly wrote in his book that a majority supported the Anschluss.

Are you saying that historians who wrote/write that an "overwhelming majority" of Austrians supported the Anschluss were/are lying?

An overwhelming majority is so large that it absolutely swamps the opposition. This appears to be your position. Unfortunately, you have not so far been able to establish this. You simply offer a few opinions that are directly contradicted by other opinions. Indeed, the source you regard as the best available, Bukey, nowhere says anything about “overwhelming”.

The word "overwhelming" does not necessarily mean only that. I would like to think that you are aware a word can have different meanings.

Although I have never said when using "overwhelming majority" to mean "so large that it absolutely swamps the opposition" - it is evident that this could also be used to describe the Austrians approval of the Anschluss in 1938 considering there is zero evidence of any clear opposition.

Let us have a look at the various definitions of 'overwhelming':

overwhelming
əʊvəˈwɛlmɪŋ/Submit
adjective
adjective: overwhelming
very great in amount.
"his party won overwhelming support"
synonyms: very large, profuse, enormous, immense, inordinate, massive, huge, formidable, stupendous, prodigious, fantastic, staggering, shattering, devastating, sweeping; More
antonyms: small
(especially of an emotion) very strong.
"she felt an overwhelming desire to giggle"
overwhelm
əʊvəˈwɛlm/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: overwhelming
1.
bury or drown beneath a huge mass of something, especially water.
"floodwaters overwhelmed hundreds of houses"
synonyms: swamp, submerge, engulf, bury, deluge, flood, inundate; More
give too much of something to; inundate.
"they were overwhelmed by farewell messages"
2.
have a strong emotional effect on.
"I was overwhelmed with guilt"
synonyms: overcome, move, stir, affect, touch, impress, sweep someone off their feet, strike, stun, make emotional, dumbfound, shake, disturb, devastate, take aback, daze, spellbind, dazzle, floor, leave speechless, take someone's breath away, stagger; More
3.
defeat completely.
"the Irish side was overwhelmed 15–3 by Scotland"
synonyms: defeat (utterly/heavily/easily), trounce, rout, beat, beat hollow, conquer, vanquish, be victorious over, gain a victory over, prevail over, get the better of, triumph over; More
be too strong for; overpower.
"the Stilton doesn't overwhelm the flavour of the trout"

overwhelming
adjective UK ​ /ˌəʊ.vəˈwel.mɪŋ/ US ​ /ˌoʊ.vɚ-/
​
C1 difficult to fight against:

She felt an overwhelming urge/desire/need to tell someone about what had happened.
​
C1 very great or very large:

She said how much she appreciated the overwhelming generosity of the public in responding to the appeal.
An overwhelming majority has voted in favour of the proposal.

overwhelming
ADJECTIVE
1Very great in amount.

‘his party won overwhelming support’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1 (especially of an emotion) very strong.
‘she felt an overwhelming desire to giggle’

overwhelming
(oʊvəʳhwelmɪŋ )
1. adjective
If something is overwhelming, it affects you very strongly, and you do not know how to deal with it.
The task won't feel so overwhelming if you break it down into small, easy-to-accomplish steps.
She felt an overwhelming desire to have another child.
Synonyms: overpowering, strong, powerful, towering More Synonyms of overwhelming
overwhelmingly adverb [ADVERB adjective]
Women of his own middle class found him overwhelmingly attractive.
...the overwhelmingly strange medieval city of Fès.
2. adjective [usually ADJECTIVE noun]
You can use overwhelming to emphasize that an amount or quantity is much greater than other amounts or quantities.
[emphasis]
The overwhelming majority of small businesses go broke within the first twenty-four months.
The party won an overwhelming victory in Burma's general elections last May.
The vote was overwhelming–283 in favour, and only twenty-nine against.

overwhelming
[oh-ver-hwel-ming, -wel-]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
that overwhelms; overpowering:
The temptation to despair may become overwhelming.
2.
so great as to render resistance or opposition useless:
an overwhelming majority.

There are clearly many of these definitions that can be used to describe the Austrians feelings towards the Anschluss in 1938, hence why different historians say an "overwhelming majority" were in favour of the Anschluss.

If you are “entirely sure”, please put either a number or a percentage on it. You won’t, of course, because you know this to be true.

When you are posting things like this, considering what we have already discussed regarding defining a percentage, I genuinely think you're just trying to wind me up. I have already admitted that it's not rational to say a percentage because there is no hard proof one way or the other.

Bukey does indeed noted various Gestapo reports of anti-German feelings in parts of Austria during the war. However, he clearly noted that the majority of Austrians fought for the German victory until the bitter end.

Are you seriously expecting me to take you serious when you are making up words like "overwhelmingism" and "overwhelmingist"? I thought the last thing that someone who is disagreeing with the various definitions of 'overwhelming' would do is start making up words.

I think you are confusing approval of the Anschluss with support for the Nazis. Between 1867 and 1918 when Austria was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the majority of Austrians considered themselves Germans but were still loyal to Austria. Similarly, in 1938 I'm sure many Austrians who considered themselves Germans were still loyal to Austria and did not want to become second best to Prussia (Bukey reports the Austrian anti-Prussian feeling during the existence of the Anschluss). However, Nazis or not, the Austrians were largely in favour of an Anschluss with Germany. A genuine plebiscite result is not needed - other evidence is clearly available.

There are other sources than simply Bukey. I have quoted a variety of sources.

Your objection to my invention of the word “overwhelmingism” as shorthand to describe the position you and the Nazis share is silly. I think I understand the Nazis’ motivation for wanting an "overwhelming" result, but yours remains a mystery to me.

Really Sid? You are expecting me to take you serious when you are disagreeing with the definition of a word yet you are making up words?

I have an inkling that you're simply disagreeing with the idea an overwhelming majority of Austrians supported the Anschluss because it would confirm the Nazis' plebiscite result, am I right?

I remember in one of your posts you criticised dictators yet you have not once criticised Schuschnigg when he was also a dictator and a fascist who would have made a rigged plebiscite appear as a genuine one (the same as Hitler did), why is that exactly?

The only thing you seem to be repeating to debunk the Nazis' plebiscite result is the entirely plausible idea that Schuschnigg could have got two-thirds of Austrians to vote for his rigged plebiscite. How can you counter a rigged plebiscite result with another rigged plebiscite result? That makes no sense.

Also, I have pointed out that there is a difference in time e.g in 1918 plebiscites carried out showed nigh on 100% voted for approval of an Anschluss with Germany. There is not a single bit of evidence to show that the popularity for an Anschluss between 1918 and 1938 diminished. On the contrary, the evidence available clearly shows that overall both Austrians and Reich Germans wanted the union between Austria and Germany. The very fact that Hitler was a native Austrian and had came to power in Germany and did a lot of good economically for Germany up until 1938 played a roll in some of the reasons why the Austrians were eager for the Anschluss. If you want to believe that all of evidence around that time such as the footage, journalists' opinions, memoirs of Austrians, etc, was just simply Nazi propaganda then you are simply deluding yourself.

I accept that the overall approval was not what the Nazi plebiscites showed but it was still quite clearly an easy majority - with or without the Nazis, the Austrians and Reich Germans in 1938 would have voted clearly for union between Austria and Germany. However, I believe that an overwhelming majority supported the Anschluss because that is clearly what the evidence available supports. If you can't grasp that the word 'overwhelming' can have various meanings and not just the one you quoted (which to be honest is also applicable) then that is your problem and not mine.

Once you have finally comprehended that the word 'overwhelming' can have different meanings (I can't even think of one that can not be applied to the Austrians approval of the Anschluss in 1938), you will realise that you arguing against the notion that an "overwhelming majority" of Austrians approved of the Anschluss will have been a waste of time.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Lamarck

I think you will find the source you are after in my text - the 1934 Austrian Constitution. This was introduced after the Communist uprising but before the Nazi uprising. It was introduced against foreign-associated extremism, which included both Communists and Nazis.

Yup, I am reading properly what you are quoting. Are you reading my reply: Yup. As the British Ambassador opined, the arrangements for Schussnigg’s plebiscite “left room for doubt on the impartiality of the plebiscite”. This doesn’t sound too promising until one compares it with the actual practice of the Nazi plebiscite, which left absolutely no doubt as to its enormous partiality! I am weighing doubts about Schussnigg's proposed plebiscite against the reality of the Nazi plebiscite. The Nazi plebiscite does not come out well by comparison, however flawed Schussnigg's plebiscite may have been if allowed to proceed.

You post, ".....only "yes" ballot papers, with the Austrian red-white-red stripes on both sides, were to be issued—if you wanted to vote "no,", you had to bring your own ballot paper." If true, this would be worse than the Nazi practice of having a skewed ballot paper. This link (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-con ... chluss.png) shows the Nazi plebiscite ballot paper together with instructions how to vote. Have you an illustration of the Schussnigg plebiscite paper to compare it with?

You post, "A simple question as well, do you agree that the outcome of Schuschnigg's plebiscite would have been rigged as well?" I have already answered this. The answer is very probably, though as it never took place we cannot be 100% certain to what degree. By contrast we can be 100% certain that the Nazi was massively rigged on a number of levels beyond the resources available to Schussnigg.

Must go.

I will be back later.

Sid.

[Lamarck]

Hi Lamarck

I think you will find the source you are after in my text - the 1934 Austrian Constitution. This was introduced after the Communist uprising but before the Nazi uprising. It was introduced against foreign-associated extremism, which included both Communists and Nazis.

He acted in 'accordance' with the Austrian Constitution when it came to limiting the voting age to twenty-four but he had violated in other ways which I have already mentioned. The decision to keep the age to twenty-four was to stop Nazi sympathisers from voting "No". Also, members of the Fatherland Front could vote at any age.

Yup, I am reading properly what you are quoting. Are you reading my reply: Yup. As the British Ambassador opined, the arrangements for Schussnigg’s plebiscite “left room for doubt on the impartiality of the plebiscite”. This doesn’t sound too promising until one compares it with the actual practice of the Nazi plebiscite, which left absolutely no doubt as to its enormous partiality! I am weighing doubts about Schussnigg's proposed plebiscite against the reality of the Nazi plebiscite. The Nazi plebiscite does not come out well by comparison, however flawed Schussnigg's plebiscite may have been if allowed to proceed.

Are you kidding me? At least the Nazis' allowed "Yes" and "No" to appear on the same paper. Schussnigg had other plans.

You post, ".....only "yes" ballot papers, with the Austrian red-white-red stripes on both sides, were to be issued—if you wanted to vote "no,", you had to bring your own ballot paper." If true, this would be worse than the Nazi practice of having a skewed ballot paper. This link (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-con ... chluss.png) shows the Nazi plebiscite ballot paper together with instructions how to vote. Have you an illustration of the Schussnigg plebiscite paper to compare it with?

Flugzettel zur Unabhängigkeitsabstimmung im März 1938 Text:'Frei und Treu! Heil Schuschnigg!' darunter Feld mit 'Ja!', an der Seite 'Gültige Stimmzettel. Ausschneiden und zur Abstimmung mitnehmen'

http://www.bildarchivaustria.at/Pages/I ... dID=390785

You post, "A simple question as well, do you agree that the outcome of Schuschnigg's plebiscite would have been rigged as well?" I have already answered this. The answer is very probably, though as it never took place we cannot be 100% certain to what degree. By contrast we can be 100% certain that the Nazi was massively rigged on a number of levels beyond the resources available to Schussnigg.

Must go.

I will be back later.

Sid.

Please do read what I have already posted regarding Schuschnigg's plebiscite and have a look at the Schuschnigg's plebiscite paper. Schuschnigg's plebiscite's plebiscite rigging was arguably going to be worse than the Nazis'.

No one has contested that the Nazi plebiscite result was rigged but to what degree is unknown. However, despite the actually rigging that happened, many historians regard it as a moot point because the turn out would have still been largely in favour of "Yes" with or without the Nazis.