Anschluss

[ljadw]

You post, "All political parties (SPÖ ,Communists and ÖVP included ) were partisans of the Anschluss." This is simply untrue. The Communists wanted Anschluss with everyone because they were internationalists, not specifically with Germany. Other parties that had had Anschluss in their programmes dropped it after the assassination of Dolfuss by the Nazis in 1934. (Reports of the numbers attending Dolfuss's funeral in Vienna in 1934 are also far larger than the numbers who reportedly turned out to greet Hitler in the city in 1938).
Cheers,

Sid.

I refer to an article in the Wiener Zeitung of March 7 2018 by Professor Franz Schausberger with as title :
Deutschnational waren sie irgendwie alle
Die Rolle der Österreichische parteien vor dem ''Anschluss '' 1938 .

Someone as Otto Bauer , leader of the Austro-Marxismus ,was before Hitler a fervent supporter of the Anschluss,although he was a Marxist and Jewish . He was NOT an internationalist .
And, even after the Anschluss, he supported Karl Renner, the only SPÖ leader who was still in Austria ( the others had fled in 1933/1934 ) ,when he exhorted the Austrian Socialists to vote yes in the Anschluss referendum .
Thus even in March 1938 prominent socialists preferred Hitler to Schuschnigg .
There are no proofs that the SPÖ dropped the Anschluss after the assassination of Dolfuss, who was for them only an Austrian Hitler .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljad,

You post, "About the Jews and the other people that were barred from voting: they were not barred because they would/could vote no, but because they were Jewish,and opponents of the regime. If they had been able to vote, it is probable that a lot of them would have voted yes. In the false hope (for the Jews) not to be persecuted." So, you are so desperate to recruit support for Anschluss that you are even prepared to include people who might have been intimidated into voting for it? You really do set your evidential bar incredibly low! It is like claiming that Turkeys must be in favour of Christmas on the grounds that they are participants!

I would point out that it was you, not me, that put the upper limit on likely support for Anschluss at 90% or less. My inclination, as you well know, is that it would have been considerably lower in a free and fair referendum. So no, I, for one, would not ".....say that the support for the Anschluss would have been limited to 92/90 %."

You post, "The reality is that thousands of opponents of the new regime voted yes. For a lot of reasons, as opportunism; voting yes and doing it publicly would benefit those who did it." So, you are now including people opposed to Anschluss on principle as proponents of Anschluss? What about the concept of "free and fair"?

You seem to want to overlook all sorts of intimidation, irregularities and dubious motivations in order to recruit support for the Nazi Anachluss plebiscite.

Cheers,

A bemused Sid

[ljadw]

Opponents of the new regime is not the same as opponents of the Anschluss .There were a lot of socialists and communists who were at the same time
a partisans of the Anschluss
b opponents of nazism
c opponents of Schuschnigg
The referendum was about the Anschluss,not about nazism .
And I disagree that the outcome would be different in a free and fair referendum .It is not because there were intimidation and irregularities that the result was determined by the intimidation and irregularities .
There were 12 no votes in Sankt Margarethen in Lavantal (Carinthia),the local party chief decided to change them in yes votes to have the title of Führergemeinde with 100% yes votes, but there is no proof that without the intimidation , which existed, there would be more no voters .
I said 90 % in a free and fair referendum ,but as there was no such one ...And the irregularities were not universal : of the 400 towns in Carinthia only 100 obtained the title of Führergemeinde,which means that in the 300 other the local party chief admitted the existence of no voters .
About the 8 % that were barred ( mostly Jewish and Mischlinge ) ,there is no proof that in the existing referendum,if they had been allowed to vote,they would have voted no .They were not barred because of the danger that they would vote no ( most people that could vote no were allowed to vote ) but because their presence in the polling stations would create incidents who would be reported by the foreign press : antisemitism was very strong in Austria and there was already a pogrom before the referendum .
A free/fair referendum was impossible as this would imply also a free and fair election for the Reichstag with the participation of several parties ,thus a return to democracy .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

So, you contend that all the ballot rigging, one-sided propaganda, distorted ballot papers, lack of a secret ballot, intimidation, barring of hundreds of thousands of voters, military occupation by several hundred thousand German soldiers, arrest of tens of thousands of opponents by 40,000 imported police, false counts, etc., etc., made absolutely no difference to the Nazi plebiscite result?

This is patently ridiculous!

If this was true, why would the Germans need to occupy Austria when Schussnigg was already holding a plebiscite?

Or is it your contention that, while the Nazis could not alter a single vote through all these nefarious means, Schussnigg, with far fewer resources, could do so?

Your entire proposition lacks a plausible rationale.

It is anecdotally entirely plausible that a clear majority of Austrians were in favour of Anschluss in April 1938, but the hard evidence is lacking that an overwhelming majority, let alone 90%, were in favour had they been allowed a free and fair vote!

Cheers,

Sid.

[Frech]

If this was true, why would the Germans need to occupy Austria when Schuschnigg was already holding a plebiscite?

Dear Sid,

that´s a very good argument - thank you.

All we see are 80.000 people on Heldenplatz in March 1938. Where were the 6.000.000 others?

Christian

P.S.: my grand uncle (police officer in Linz) was one of the first killed by the Gestapo in the night from 11.03.1938 to 12.03.1938.

[ljadw]

There could not be 6 million people present on the Heldenplatz.

[Frech]

There could not be 6 million people present on the Heldenplatz.

What I mean is that you did not see the people who were against the Anschluss and the Nazis because they stayed at home and were not on the streets to celebrate Hitler and the Nazis. And they were more than you can imagine. Who can tell if they were 10, 20, 30 or more percent of the austrian citizens.

Regards

Christian

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,

So, you contend that all the ballot rigging, one-sided propaganda, distorted ballot papers, lack of a secret ballot, intimidation, barring of hundreds of thousands of voters, military occupation by several hundred thousand German soldiers, arrest of tens of thousands of opponents by 40,000 imported police, false counts, etc., etc., made absolutely no difference to the Nazi plebiscite result?

This is patently ridiculous!

If this was true, why would the Germans need to occupy Austria when Schussnigg was already holding a plebiscite?

Or is it your contention that, while the Nazis could not alter a single vote through all these nefarious means, Schussnigg, with far fewer resources, could do so?

Your entire proposition lacks a plausible rationale.

It is anecdotally entirely plausible that a clear majority of Austrians were in favour of Anschluss in April 1938, but the hard evidence is lacking that an overwhelming majority, let alone 90%, were in favour had they been allowed a free and fair vote!

Cheers,

Sid.

Every one knows what the official outcome would be of the Schuschnigg referendum : 99 % for the continuation of his dictatorship .That's why the Germans intervened .
And, why are you always talking about a free and fair referendum ? This was an impossibility ,even if the nazis wanted it .
The results of the Schuschnigg referendum would be an overwhelming vote against Schuschnigg and Schuschnigg would falsify the results which would become 99 % for Schuschnigg .
Your last argument is flawed : of course the evidence is lacking that an overwhelming majority would have voted yes in a free and fair election, because such an election was impossible .
OTOH,it is not certain that a free and fair election would give a different result : if in 1960 there were free and fair elections in the SU, I am certain that an overwhelming majority would still have voted for the Communists.
The difference between both referenda is that the nazis were politically stronger than Schuschnigg : they could expect support from communist,socialist," catholic"" and non committed voters, while the base of Schuschnigg was much smaller ; only a part of the" catholic'' voters .
The choice in both elections was between an independent Austria, that most people considered as non viable, ruled by a dictator who brought only misery and an Austria that would be a part of a big German Empire, the dream since 100 years from the majority of the Austrians, ruled by an Austrian dictator who had brought prosperity in Germany .
The real results are not difficult to guess .
Schuschnigg would need to falsify the results to win, the nazis did not need to falsify the results ,there was no general order from Berlin to falsify the results .
The decision of Schuschnigg to hold a referendum was a proof of weakness, and the voters are as the rats : they leave the sinking ship . The decision of Hitler to hold a referendum was a proof of strength : to convince people outside Germany that the Anschluss was supported by the Austrian people .

[ljadw]

There could not be 6 million people present on the Heldenplatz.

What I mean is that you did not see the people who were against the Anschluss and the Nazis because they stayed at home and were not on the streets to celebrate Hitler and the Nazis. And they were more than you can imagine. Who can tell if they were 10, 20, 30 or more percent of the austrian citizans.

Regards

Christian

There was a considerable part of the population that was hostile to the nazis, but only an insignifiant part that was hostile to the Anschluss : all Austrian political parties, some more than the others,had in the past been pro Anschluss . These parties no longer existed and their leaders were abroad ( all since 1933 ) , their voters were orphans and had to decide themselves . They would vote yes to the Anschluss . No Anschluss meant the continuation of the Schuschnigg regime . Something almost nobody wanted .
That most Austrians stayed at home is not a proof that they were hostile to the new regime . In 1947 Franco organised a demonstration in Madrid against the UN who condemned his regime, a lot of people were present, but most inhabitants of Madrid were not present . That does not prove that they were anti Franco .

[history1]

[...]
If this was true, why would the Germans need to occupy Austria when Schussnigg was already holding a plebiscite?
[...]
Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Sid,

as this forum is even mentioned a source in publications I would like to remind you that his name was Kurt Schuschnigg, not Schussnigg.

Cheers,
Roman

[history1]

[...]
It would help if anyone can recognize the slogan on the side of the train "Hitler Deutschland ......." although it seems to me incomplete.
[...]

The plaquard in viewtopic.php?p=436890#p436890 reads "Hitler Deutschland bringt Arbeit = Hitler Germany brings you work".

[history1]

Hi David,

You posted: "You have better photos?" The quality or number of photos is irrelevant. If they only show the minority of the population who turned out, then they cannot be taken as evidence of majority opinion. There were no Reich-sponsored, Nazi propaganda cameramen taking photos of the 60% of the population of Linz (the hometown of Hitler's youth) or the 83% of the population of Vienna (by far Austria's biggest city) who apparently did not turn out to greet Hitler.

To use an analogy, if the British press take photos of, say, Chelsea parading the F.A. Cup through the streets of London to adoring crowds, they may show mass enthusiasm by Chelsea supporters but they won't show all the more numerous supporters of the many other London teams, or those who simply have no interest in football at all. Chelsea supporters are not representative of London as a whole. They are a self-selecting group, just as the crowds who welcomed Hitler on the streets were self-selecting.

[...]

Cheers,

Sid.

Well said, Sid!

[history1]

[...]
Come on... You know history :

Later plebiscites in Tyrol and Salzburg in 1921, where majorities of 98,77%[5] and 99,11%[6] voted for a unification with Germany, showed that it was also backed by the population.

Although there were irregularities, LIFE in 1938 acknowledged that the results of the referendum and its German counterpart were "largely honest".[8] Some postwar accounts claim that the poll was rigged, but there is no evidence that this was necessary.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Aust ... referendum

ROFL
No evidence? The Nazi terror during the time when the NSDAP was prohibited in Austria was only for the entertainment of the citzens then?
https://www.doew.at/erinnern/fotos-und- ... esterreich
And the list of casualties (only death records) from 1933 - 1938:
https://www.doew.at/erinnern/fotos-und- ... -1933-1938
And the intimidating SA and SS members and other Nazi officials present at the poll were also just because they had not anything better to do in their sparetime? And why was there no secret poll with vooting boths?
BTW, as far as I know were also only people of German or people of other aryan (artverwandt) blood allowed to vote. So Frankenberg can count the Jews off in his rigged poll.

[history1]

[...]
Since a century the Austrians were waiting for the Anschluss, the fact that it was Hitler ( an Austrian ) who now ruled Germany as a dictator would not have as result that the Austrians would refuse the Anschluss.

The Austrian Hitler did rule Nazi Germany? Where did you get your education?

For most Austrians ,the choice was between a dictator who brought prosperity and a dictator who was responsible for poverty . [...]

There was only on choice they had to make, it´s where they make their cross on the ballot paper. And with all the people standing around the voter and observing his action the choice was clear. You sure don´t make the cross onto the "nein =no" and showing them directly who their (political) enemy is.

[history1]

[...] The Jewish Germans also were barred from the Anschluss referendum in 1938 .[...]

And in which way had any German a relevance to the Anschluß - poll of Austria? Non at all.