Why didn't Hitler advocate Austrian nationalist ideas?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

Again you are hoist by your own petard.

You write, "It is perfectly possible that in a small Austrian town every one had voted for the Anschluss,even anti-nazis ".

That may well be, but then you then follow up with an example that contradicts this: "In 1921 a Anschluss referendum in Hapsburg faithful had resulted in a majority of 98,77 %:145302 Yes against 1805 No."!!!!

You write, "I don't believe that 20 people told someone for whom they had voted." So what? Your personal beliefs are of no significance compared with the statement of someone who was present. You may choose to ignore him, but that doesn't improve your credibility.

It would be interesting to know why you "don't believe that 20 people told someone for whom they had voted."? It wouldn't, by any chance, be something to do with the prevailing atmosphere of fear that undermines the near-unanimous credibility of all the Nazi plebiscites, would it?

You post, "My example was that someone who publicly defended party A could vote for party B ." Yup. And so could could they the other way.

You post, "Last year a lot of Labour voters voted for Brexit but did not support the UKIP....", This is irrelevant.

You post, "it was also possible to vote for the Anschluss while remaining hostile to the NSDAP ." Yup, we are all agreed on that. What is your point?

Cheers, in haste,

Sid.

[ljadw]

SIGH
The 1921 referendum in Tirol was more free than the 1938 referendum : if 98,77 % was voting for the Anschluss in 1921, it is very possible that in 1938 in some towns 100 % would have voted for the Anschluss .

About the 20 people who claimed to have voted against the Anschluss : we have only the word of the writer, and why should we believe him ? If people voted against the Anschluss , they would not tell it urbi et orbi . Do you have told to other people for whom you voted in the last elections ?
The Brexit /UKIP example is not irrelevant : if people who always had voted Labour ,did vote for Brexit , although it was the UKIP who defended Brexit, why could Austrians who never voted for the nazis ,not vote for the Anschluss ? And, as the Anschluss was already reality BEFORE the referendum, why should people vote against what had happened ?
All this prove that it is very possible that in a small town everyone would have voted for the Anschluss .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

The 1921 referendum in Tirol had specific characteristics. It came immediately after South Tirol was annexed by Italy as its spoils from WWI.

More generally, Austrian national self confidence was at an all time low immediately after WWI, which had cost it its empire, and support for Anschluss with Germany was probably at an all time high then. Support for Anschluss declined over the following decade to the point that all legal parties dropped it from their manifestos in 1934, following the failed Nazi coup attempt. Support then probably began to rise again as the apparent rewards of Nazi economic policy in Germany seemed appealing.

However the German and Austrian peace treaties specifically forbade Anschluss between the two, because to have allowed it would have rewarded Germany for its role in WWI despite its defeat.

Yes, the author was a German. And you are right that ".....the situation in Austria was different." It was different because there was even more pressure to conform in Austria than in Germany. Germany, for example, was not occupied by a foreign army and had not undergone tens of thousands of arrests of political opponents immediately before the plebiscite. Austria endured both.

Yes, we have only the word of the writer that he knew of 20 people who claimed to have voted "No" to Anschluss in 1938 in his town, which reported a 100% "Yes" vote. So what? It is inherently unlikely that everybody in an entire town would be in full agreement on anything, so 20 dissidents is hardly an extravagant claim, is it? I would suggest that the modesty of his claim makes the writer more, not less, plausible.

You write, "If people voted against the Anschluss, they would not tell it urbi et orbi....." But they didn't tell "urbi et orbi", did they? As far as we know they told one man.

You ask, ".....why could Austrians who never voted for the Nazis, not vote for the Anschluss?" I'll say it yet again, there is not only no reason why they couldn't, but it is highly likely that large numbers did precisely that. That is not in dispute. Please read what I actually write.

You ask, "And, as the Anschluss was already reality BEFORE the referendum, why should people vote against what had happened?" You make my point for me. The referendum was a complete sham as a consultative exercise because whatever the result Anschluss was already a fait accompli.

What is interesting is that I have now put up three or four different eye witness accounts of the plebiscite each of which allege rigging and each of which give different examples of how it was done. Together they add to a picture of the complete corruption of the Anschluss plebiscite on many, many levels.

And the Nazis brought this discredit on Anschluss themselves quite unnecessarily, because, all other things being equal, it is probable that they would have won a free and fair plebiscite with a clear majority that would have legitimized the process genuinely.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Lamarck]

More generally, Austrian national self confidence was at an all time low immediately after WWI, which had cost it its empire, and support for Anschluss with Germany was probably at an all time high then. Support for Anschluss declined over the following decade to the point that all legal parties dropped it from their manifestos in 1934, following the failed Nazi coup attempt. Support then probably began to rise again as the apparent rewards of Nazi economic policy in Germany seemed appealing.

Can you cite some sources that provide evidence that the support for the Anschluss declined in the 1920s and early 1930s?

However the German and Austrian peace treaties specifically forbade Anschluss between the two, because to have allowed it would have rewarded Germany for its role in WWI despite its defeat.

The prohibition contradicted the concept of self-determination which was granted to other ethnic groups.

Yes, the author was a German. And you are right that ".....the situation in Austria was different." It was different because there was even more pressure to conform in Austria than in Germany. Germany, for example, was not occupied by a foreign army and had not undergone tens of thousands of arrests of political opponents immediately before the plebiscite. Austria endured both.

Why are you citing a German about the German election and referendum, 1938 when we are in fact discussing the Austrians attitude towards the Anschluss?

Yes, we have only the word of the writer that he knew of 20 people who claimed to have voted "No" to Anschluss in 1938 in his town, which reported a 100% "Yes" vote. So what? It is inherently unlikely that everybody in an entire town would be in full agreement on anything, so 20 dissidents is hardly an extravagant claim, is it? I would suggest that the modesty of his claim makes the writer more, not less, plausible.

Are you cherry-picking anecdotal evidence to support your statement? By your logic, you should also believe LIFE that the 1938 Anschluss referendum result was "largely honest".

I don't see you posting words like "probable" when the "evidence" supports your statements.

You write, "If people voted against the Anschluss, they would not tell it urbi et orbi....." But they didn't tell "urbi et orbi", did they? As far as we know they told one man.

You make my point for me. The referendum was a complete sham as a consultative exercise because whatever the result Anschluss was already a fait accompli.

From Hitler's point of view, the Anschluss referendum was a complete success and made him even more popular.

What is interesting is that I have now put up three or four different eye witness accounts of the plebiscite each of which allege rigging and each of which give different examples of how it was done. Together they add to a picture of the complete corruption of the Anschluss plebiscite on many, many levels.

The authenticity of the authors must be taken into consideration since so far you have only cited openly anti-Nazis and not ordinary Austrian citizens.

And the Nazis brought this discredit on Anschluss themselves quite unnecessarily, because, all other things being equal, it is probable that they would have won a free and fair plebiscite with a clear majority that would have legitimized the process genuinely.

Hitler didn't think the Nazi campaign for the Anschluss was any discredit to the idea, he believed that "all state power must emanate from the people and [be] confirmed in free state elections."

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

The 1921 referendum in Tirol had specific characteristics. It came immediately after South Tirol was annexed by Italy as its spoils from WWI.

More generally, Austrian national self confidence was at an all time low immediately after WWI, which had cost it its empire, and support for Anschluss with Germany was probably at an all time high then. Support for Anschluss declined over the following decade to the point that all legal parties dropped it from their manifestos in 1934, following the failed Nazi coup attempt. Support then probably began to rise again as the apparent rewards of Nazi economic policy in Germany seemed appealing.

However the German and Austrian peace treaties specifically forbade Anschluss between the two, because to have allowed it would have rewarded Germany for its role in WWI despite its defeat.

Yes, the author was a German. And you are right that ".....the situation in Austria was different." It was different because there was even more pressure to conform in Austria than in Germany. Germany, for example, was not occupied by a foreign army and had not undergone tens of thousands of arrests of political opponents immediately before the plebiscite. Austria endured both.

Yes, we have only the word of the writer that he knew of 20 people who claimed to have voted "No" to Anschluss in 1938 in his town, which reported a 100% "Yes" vote. So what? It is inherently unlikely that everybody in an entire town would be in full agreement on anything, so 20 dissidents is hardly an extravagant claim, is it? I would suggest that the modesty of his claim makes the writer more, not less, plausible.

You write, "If people voted against the Anschluss, they would not tell it urbi et orbi....." But they didn't tell "urbi et orbi", did they? As far as we know they told one man.

You ask, ".....why could Austrians who never voted for the Nazis, not vote for the Anschluss?" I'll say it yet again, there is not only no reason why they couldn't, but it is highly likely that large numbers did precisely that. That is not in dispute. Please read what I actually write.

You ask, "And, as the Anschluss was already reality BEFORE the referendum, why should people vote against what had happened?" You make my point for me. The referendum was a complete sham as a consultative exercise because whatever the result Anschluss was already a fait accompli.

What is interesting is that I have now put up three or four different eye witness accounts of the plebiscite each of which allege rigging and each of which give different examples of how it was done. Together they add to a picture of the complete corruption of the Anschluss plebiscite on many, many levels.

And the Nazis brought this discredit on Anschluss themselves quite unnecessarily, because, all other things being equal, it is probable that they would have won a free and fair plebiscite with a clear majority that would have legitimized the process genuinely.

Cheers,

Sid.

Tirol :
1921 :for the Anschluss : 98,9 %
1938 :for the Anschluss : 99,27 % In 98 towns no body voted against .
Innsbruck :
1921 :for the Anschluss : 98,5 %
1938 : for the Anschluss : 99,37 %
Salzburgerland :
1921 : for the Anschluss :99,12 %
1938 : for the Anschluss : 99,7 %
Salzburg:

1921 : for the Anschluss :99,6 %
1938 :for the Anschluss : 99,8 %
Burgenland :
1938 : for the Anschluss :99,96 %
Thus it is not unlikely that everyone in a town would agree on the Anschluss : 98 towns in Tirol gave as results 100 % for the Anschluss .
Than : in a democracy people are not telling other people for whom they voted, thus why should 20 people in a dictatorship tell some one for whom they voted ? In a dictatorship, everyone can be an agent of the police .

And, finally, why would some one in Austria vote against the Anschluss ,while the alternative was the continuation of the Schuschnig dictatorship that had failed to solve the social and economic problems ?
As some said in the US : it's the economy,you stupid .

[ljadw]

I like to add the following about the so-called decrease of the Anschluss idea after the first years after WWI : the leaders of the Christian Social Party (Seipel, Dollfuss,Schuschnig) had all been partisan of the Anschluss . The same as the leaders of the Socialists. The Anschluss idea was sleeping, but not dead, it waited only on a good opportunity to come back again .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

Firstly, Innsbruck is the capital of Tirol, not a separate entity.

Between the Salzburg and Tirol plebiscites, only about 5% of the Austrian electorate were polled, and they were polled precisely because they were the areas most directly affected by the loss of South Tirol to Italy. So they cannot necessarily be taken as typical of Austria as a whole.

Your 1921 plebiscite figures also illustrate another reason why the Nazis had to rig their referendum so outrageously to get such a massive "Yes" vote in 1938 - they could not be seen to fall below the figures of 1921.

You ask, "....why should 20 people in a dictatorship tell some one for whom they voted?" Perhaps because they were personally acquainted, were of like mind and had confidence in them? You need to have more confidence in the character of German people! Anyway, the important point here is that you agree that Nazi Germany was a dictatorship, which means that free and fair popular consultative processes did not apply under it.

You write, "In a dictatorship, everyone can be an agent of the police." Surely, that is an argument for 20 being an absolutely minimal figure?

Finally, you ask, "why would some one in Austria vote against the Anschluss, while the alternative was the continuation of the Schussnigg dictatorship that had failed to solve the social and economic problems?" Perhaps because they were nationalists, monarchists, patriots, principled, moralists, Jewish, democrats, humanitarians, communists, catholics, internationalists......... No, its not always all about the economy. You may be so easily bought, but some people have wider principles than pure financial self interest!

For your question to have validity, you would first have to explain away why Schussnigg's own referendum was expected by assorted observers to pass with a 55%-75% majority in his faviour and why the Nazis had to undertake such massive distortion of the refendium process in order to get their own referendum to pass?

The answers to these questions lie in various places in the thread above.

Cheers,

Sid

[ljadw]

1)Salzburgerland had nothing to do with South Tirol

2) The loss of South Tirol to Italy did not influence the Anschluss to Germany referendum in Tirol .

3) What assorted observers ?

4) The Schuschnigg referendum was a farce

5) That Germany was a dictatorship does not mean that in free elections people would vote against the regime :after the death of Stalin ,the KGB and Gulag were dismantled, but the Soviet population continued to support the regime . Mainly for economic reasons :people are not interested in politics and in the doctrines of communism, democracy, fascism, etc,they are only interested in a good life .

6) I am convinced that in a free referendum as many Austrians would have supported the Anschluss as in Hitler's referendum .

7) There were 10 % of the Austrians without a job and 1 % of the Germans,and the Austrians blamed Schischnig and the Germans praised Hitler .

8) About the 20 people : this is a story no one will believe : every one of them could work for the Gestapo and the man to whom they confessed could also be working for the Gestapo . Someone who is parading as an opponent of a dictator is very suspect : in more than 50 % of the cases he is an agent provocateur .

As I already said : the result of the referendum was decided by opportunism, social pressure, propaganda, ideological conviction, sense of reality ,as it is in most referenda.
The referendum reflected the true convictions of the Austrians .
Socialists were persecuted by Schuschnigg and had no work, some would also be persecuted by Hitler ,but they would have work .
The leaders of the Christian Social party (Seipel, Dolfuss, Schuschnigg) had in the past supported the Anschluss...
Even a lot of communists supported the Anschluss .

[Lamarck]

So they cannot necessarily be taken as typical of Austria as a whole.

Obviously. However, it clearly shows that in some areas of Austria in 1918, there was an overwhelming amount of support for union with Germany. I am sure if other areas were polled in German-Austria at the time then the results would not have been much different.

Your 1921 plebiscite figures also illustrate another reason why the Nazis had to rig their referendum so outrageously to get such a massive "Yes" vote in 1938 - they could not be seen to fall below the figures of 1921.

Where did the Nazis "outrageously" rig exactly? As has already been shown, the Nazi plebiscite was actually fairer than the current Austrian regime at the time that was offering an independent Austria.

You ask, "....why should 20 people in a dictatorship tell some one for whom they voted?" Perhaps because they were personally acquainted, were of like mind and had confidence in them? You need to have more confidence in the character of German people! Anyway, the important point here is that you agree that Nazi Germany was a dictatorship, which means that free and fair popular consultative processes did not apply under it.

I don't think you truly understand how a dictatorship works. People during the Third Reich were incredibly suspicious of anything that was against the way the regime propagated. People even turned on friends, neighbours, etc.

You write, "In a dictatorship, everyone can be an agent of the police." Surely, that is an argument for 20 being an absolutely minimal figure?

A person claiming to have received the opinions of 20 different people under the Third Reich is laughable. The anecdotal evidence you are using doesn't have any sources and is only the author's view.

Finally, you ask, "why would some one in Austria vote against the Anschluss, while the alternative was the continuation of the Schussnigg dictatorship that had failed to solve the social and economic problems?" Perhaps because they were nationalists, monarchists, patriots, principled, moralists, Jewish, democrats, humanitarians, communists, catholics, internationalists......... No, its not always all about the economy. You may be so easily bought, but some people have wider principles than pure financial self interest!

I thought you had Bukey's book? The Austrian "nationalists" were more interested in union with Germany, a separate Austrian national identity did not exist and Austrian nationalists were pan-Germans. The Austrians were more anti-semitic than the Reich Germans and the anti-semitism was intensified because of the Anschluss. Austrian communists had no real way over politics and were not a big force in Austria during the 1930s. The Catholics and socialists were easily won over by Hitler which guaranteed a 66% vote in the Anschluss referendum.

A few of those that you have mentioned are certainly contradicted under the dictatorship of Schuschnigg.

You are back to posting BS again. I thought you had stopped that.

For your question to have validity, you would first have to explain away why Schussnigg's own referendum was expected by assorted observers to pass with a 55%-75% majority in his faviour and why the Nazis had to undertake such massive distortion of the refendium process in order to get their own referendum to pass?

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.

However, after this, Bukey wrote:

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.

Bukey, p. 22.

The Nazis had managed to easily persuade the Catholics and socialists to vote for the Anschluss.

First, since both Cardinal Innitzer and Karl Renner had endorsed the Anschluss, at least two-thirds of the electorate could be counted on to approve it.

Bukey, p. 38.

The Catholics and socialists were the people that largely determined the overall result of either referendum.

Again, if you had read Bukey's book you would have known this fact.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You post, "Salzburgerland had nothing to do with South Tirol" and "The loss of Siouth Tirol to Italy did not influence the Anschluss to Germany in South Tirol". Well they were both part of the same country and Salzburgerland is the immediate neighbour of Tirol for a start. Are you saying that the loss of South Tirol to Italy meant absoultely nothing to Salzburgerland in the early 1920s? That it had no Austrian or Germanic fellow-feeling for South Tirol? That this was not a factor in the desire to join Germany?

You ask, "What assorted observers?" Some are detailed above in this thread, which you may find worth rereading.

You say, "The Schussnigg vote was a farce". Yup, and the conditions under which the Nazi one were held were, if anything, even worse! (Again, rereading the above thread might help). That is why it is so difficult to establish with precision the precise state of Austrian public opinion in early 1938. All that it is reasonably safe to say is that, all other things being equal, it is plausible that a clear majority of Austrians would have supported Anschluss with Germany at this time.

You write, "I am convinced that in a free referendum as many Austrians would have supported the Anschluss as in Hitler's referendum." I am sure you are, but your conviction on the subject has no value if it ignores the evidence that the Nazi referendum was massively rigged in multiple ways. And why was it rigged so heavily? Because the Nazis themselves feared that a genuinely free and fair plebiscite would not give them as full an endorsement for Anschluss as they wanted.

You seem to be engaged in wish-fulfillment, not a dispassionate analysis of the evidence.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Hitler's referendum was less rigged than Schuschnigg's referendum would be:the nazis did not falsify the results of Innervillgraten where 26 % of the population voted against the Anschluss .

Salzburgerland is not Tirol and the population of Salzburgerland voted for the Anschluss in 1921 mainly for economic reasons .

Schuschnigg wanted to organize a referendum in 4 days which was impossible,because he knew that in a fair referendum he would lose .
The Austrians had the choice between a failed dictator and a successful dictator, it is not surprising that they chose the successful dictator.They voted as most against Dolfuss as for Hitler .

[ljadw]

In Vienna 0,4 % of the voters voted against the Anschluss, in Lower Austria 0,15%, in Upper Austria 0,11 %, in Salzburgerland 0,3 % , in Styria 0,13%, in Carinthia 0,17 %, in Tirol 0,56 %, in Vorarlberg 1,4 %, in Burgenland 0,04%.
The " Czechs " in Vienna voted almost unanimously for the Anschluss : Yes :23000,No :31, not valid : 32.The same for the Slovenes in Carinthia.
The number of Yes votes in the workers districts of Vienna was surprisingly high .
Source : Die Ostmark Österreich im Grossdeutschen Reich (Hermann Harspiel).

[Lamarck]

Sid,

Are you actually going to cite some sources to support your statement that the popularity of the Anschluss dwindled during the 1920s and early 1930s?

You claim the Nazis "massively rigged in multiple ways" the referendum. Can you please elaborate on this statement?

I've not read a single book that claims the referendum was "massively rigged". On the contrary, occasional rigging is certainly plausible to believe but it wasn't necessary because the vast majority of Austrians supported the Anschluss. The exclusion of certain groups totaled only a tiny amount of Austria's population in 1938 and even if every single Jew, Gypsy, etc, had voted "No", it would have made very little difference to the overall result. The Nazi campaign leading up to the Anschluss referendum was nothing out of the ordinary, all political parties and governments use propaganda and coercion when trying to get people to believe in their beliefs. As ljadw rightly pointed out, in 1938 Hitler had the image of doing a lot of good for Germany, why would the Austrians not be in favour of a native Austrian offering the union between their country and Germany? It's a no-brainer really. During the Anschluss, Hitler's Austrian origin was used as an advantage, along with the concept of Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer – "One People, One Empire, One Leader".

I've already presented you with evidence that the Schuschnigg plausible support of two-thirds of the Austrians support was quickly changed to two-thirds of the Austrian support for the Nazis since Hitler had managed to quickly make thee Catholics and socialists endorse the Anschluss. Read the quote I have posted on this page. The two-thirds support was also more rigged than the Nazi referendum result.

You claim that ljadw is not interested in "dispassionate analysis of the evidence", yet when you are presented with evidence that proves your assertions to be wrong you either ignore it or dismiss it. Practice what you preach!

Stop going around in circles over the Anschluss.

Firstly, the Nazis had the support of a guaranteed two-thirds of the Austrian support because the Catholics and socialists had quickly changed their minds and were persuaded by Hitler to endorse the Anschluss. Therefore, the Nazis had 66% of the Austrians support before anything else is to be taken into consideration. Secondly, the Nazis excluded from the referendum roughly 8% of the population which the average Austrian did not actually care about since Jews made up the most that were excluded because antisemitism was widely spread in Austria and was more ferocious than in the German Reich. Thirdly, there is no evidence that any sort of mass rigging took place, it is certainly reasonable to accept that occasional rigging took place. Lastly, since 66% of the support was made up by Catholics and socialists, include the Austrian Nazis, the average Austrian and others that supported the Anschluss, then it is not unreasonable to place the figure of around 80% of the Austrians supported the Anschluss in 1938. In this thread I have already posted about several historians that state a clear majority of Austrians would have supported the Anschluss with or without Hitler and the Nazis.

Even Richard J. Evans statement about a Gestapo report about the lack of support for the Anschluss in 1938 does not really change a thing.

If you have any problems with this analysis, feel free to criticise and provide evidence.

[Lamarck]

The " Czechs " in Vienna voted almost unanimously for the Anschluss : Yes :23000,No :31, not valid : 32

This is interesting. I also remember reading in Diemut Majer's book "Non-Germans" Under the Third Reich, that Austrians of Czech origin were allowed to become Reich citizens after the Anschluss.

Isn't this another example of one of the hypocrisies of the Nazis? The whole point in the Anschluss was to fulfill the old dream of the Greater Germany concept and unite all Germans but at the same time they were allowing not just non-German but non-Germanic people to become Reich citizens and part of Germany.

[ljadw]

I used quotation marks because these people were Austrian citizens with Czech as native language .
In 1900 they were ³102974, in 1923 81345, in 1939 56248 .They participated on the referendum, but in separate polling booths .