Germany getting Austria without Hitler?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Is is possible for Germany to acquire Austria in the 30's or 40's without the Nazis and Hitler? What becomes of Germany then?
 
See, According the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" Austria had about a 30% pro-Anschluss vote. Without rampant Nazi Terrorism--and there was MASSIVE terrorism that few people today are aware of--Austria would support co-operation and immigration but not annexation.

Austria might not RESIST a German mobilization to incorporate it, but then again, neither did Denmark. Austria stands as a separate state.
 
See, According the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" Austria had about a 30% pro-Anschluss vote. Without rampant Nazi Terrorism--and there was MASSIVE terrorism that few people today are aware of--Austria would support co-operation and immigration but not annexation.

I would very much like to know how she came to that conclusion, and when that poll was taken.

After all, that 70% of Austrians did not want to join Nazi Germany does not mean they wouldn't join a republic.

Note too that Austria was not a democracy in the 1930s, so such a poll would be questionable; and that the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich was written the Austrians were still very eager to make it clear they weren't like those Germans.

Finally, it was not written by a historian. So take something like that with a grain of salt.
 

General Zod

Banned
See, According the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" Austria had about a 30% pro-Anschluss vote.

I am terribly doubtful about the evidence. Give quote, please ?

The parliament of German Austria voted to make Austria a part of Germany in 1918, in the very Article 2 of the Constitution.

Without rampant Nazi Terrorism--and there was MASSIVE terrorism that few people today are aware of

Oh yes, the nasty Nazists were utterly unable to achieve popular support for anything they did, without brutal cohercion. It's not like they carried massive puralities in democratic elections in Germany. :rolleyes:

Besides, this would about union with a democratic Germany.
 
I am finding the book in pdf format online: the pertinent material is probably in:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/tex...=frameset;view=image;seq=359;page=root;size=s

Chapter 11 of the book.

I accept that this is not the most scholarly text on the Third Reich, but I'd like to see a better source to the contrary.

It's important to understand that Austria's moves AWAY from being a democratic state include the assassination of Dolfuss by the Nazis. Obviously, this would be mitigated somewhat if the Nazis didn't kill the Austrian Kanzler.

Finally, the obvious question of how a Democratic Germany FORCES an autocratic Austria to unite with it seems like a obvious problem. No matter what the people of Austria think, this is like getting North Korea to unite with South Korea.

@Zod: Without brutal Cohersion? That's funny and rather sad. Have you entirely forgotten that the Nazi's had their own private army run by Ernst Rohm? Or that Nazism is at its fundamental level a ideology based on Brutal Cohersion?

There can be no real seperation from the actions of the Nazis from the "Brutal Cohersion" they use as a means to achieve their ends. It might not have been necessary to gain Germany, but its certainly what happened.

As for everything after coming to power to Germany:
"Brutal Cohersion". If Anschluss is not "Brutal Cohersion" the term has no meaning.

The best case for Germany annexing Austria is for another right wing dictator to force the issue.
 

Deleted member 1487

Why not a democraticly elected leader of Germany that forces the issue by asking Austria to call for a plecibite? Assuming Austria is also not a fascist state (due to butterflies) why would this not be possible?
 
I think it would have been very possible. In fact, given that Austrians did already want to join after WWI, and were prohibited to do so by the Allies. Also, the Allies had then become more and more soft as time passed on. I think, without Hitler / the Nazis coming to power, it might have been very possible as well.

Also, where does this blunt history view come from that the Austrians always watched themselves as a nation separate from Germany?! :confused:
 
Finally, the obvious question of how a Democratic Germany FORCES an autocratic Austria to unite with it seems like a obvious problem. No matter what the people of Austria think, this is like getting North Korea to unite with South Korea.

The same way the Germans of OTL did? A threat of force that leads to ecstatic joy in the streets of Vienna. Austria is not North Korea; Schlussnig is not the glorious leader.

You could see it the way that Bruening tried in OTL, during the Depression; a custom union as the cornerstone to eventual union. It was seen as such, and there were many in Austria who thought it would go the same way.
 
Why not a democraticly elected leader of Germany that forces the issue by asking Austria to call for a plecibite? Assuming Austria is also not a fascist state (due to butterflies) why would this not be possible?


30s/40s Union between Austria and Germany?

If we start throwing butterflies around, like a strong economic inducement, you probably have a different outcome.

I'd point out, though, this scenario has had several departures from OTL:

Not only are there no Nazis and no Hitler, but Germany has managed to remain a democracy (possible but implausible--perhaps the KPD supports the political center to form a government like France's government did.)

Austria has also come through the great depression without losing its democratic form of government.

Finally, Germany is in good enough economic shape that Austria sees immediate benefits in joining Germany.

Consider that the Allies objections to Anschluss and the weakness of Germany's position means that a democratic Germany can ask, not demand an Austrian plebiscite. Austria can decline, or it could defeat the vote by a squeaker. This seems more plausible, but the setup for this is going to mean something like a milder great depression or the Weimar Republic to be run by amazing individuals instead of lackluster leaders like Heinrich Bruning.

Austria did request this after the great war, but as time marches on "Austria" as a country gains cohesion and a reputation--in a way, a slow divergence away from Germany.

With enough butterflies I'm sure you can do it peacefully--but mind you this is a very different world you're starting in.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
During the 20s and early 30s every German and Austrian politician promised an Anschluss. Then Dollfuss tried to create a Austrian identity, and without him being assassinated by the Nazis in 34 he could have been successful.

About Germany being a democracy without the Nazis; don't be so sure, there were many who favored an authoritarian government of some kind. I see it very likely that the Weimar republic would have failed even without the Nazis.
 
Not only are there no Nazis and no Hitler, but Germany has managed to remain a democracy (possible but implausible--perhaps the KPD supports the political center to form a government like France's government did.)

Well, I disagree about the implausibility; I think an unstable Third republicesque state is pretty plausible sans Hindenburg, but I digress.

Austria has also come through the great depression without losing its democratic form of government.

Why? The dictatorship of OTL was vulnerable to political pressure and and dissident groups.

Finally, Germany is in good enough economic shape that Austria sees immediate benefits in joining Germany.

But since this was OTL, this was not an assumption that should change.

Consider that the Allies objections to Anschluss and the weakness of Germany's position means that a democratic Germany can ask, not demand an Austrian plebiscite. Austria can decline, or it could defeat the vote by a squeaker. This seems more plausible, but the setup for this is going to mean something like a milder great depression or the Weimar Republic to be run by amazing individuals instead of lackluster leaders like Heinrich Bruning.

Otto Braun, savior of the Volk!

It's also unclear to me why Germany's position in the 30s is "weaker" because it's a democracy.

Or why, given that Austria's major political parties all supported Anschluss, you think the vote would fail.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Agree, if both Germany and Austria were democracies, and Germany and Austria had a go ahead from the Allies, there's no way Austria would decline an Anschluss.
 
If Dollfus had not been assassinated it is highly likely that as part of his Austrian identity he would have done what his successor failed to do restore the Hapsburg Monarchy.
 
See, According the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" Austria had about a 30% pro-Anschluss vote.
Hummm... now I'm getting my info from the totally infalable Wikipedia :p but that does suggest that "Schuschnigg set the minimum voting age at 24 in order to exclude younger voters who largely sympathized with Nazi ideology" and "Hitler declared that the referendum would be subject to major fraud and that Germany would not accept it."

Now i do not for a moment think that Hitler's view is neccesarily the correct one, but it is within the realms of posability...

Also the question gave the timescal of 1930 to 1949... which gives almost two decades for Anschluss to happen, so it is quite conceviable that something could happen to join Austria and Germany.
 
Top