Hitler defies Mussolini: invades Austria 1934

1. Even if Mussolini does bluff, I am not sure if such an aggressive step wouldn't be premature. How wary of Germany would France be? Would it be a quickstart into war-readiness? Also, an invasion of Austria (which would meet resistance, opposite to 1938) would give a wholly different image to the NS-aim of uniting the "Volksdeutsche" within the Reich. The CSR would certainly receive more backing and there would be no Munich. Also, Mussolini would be severely annoyed and might not be willing to enter an alliance with Berlin later on.

2. If Mussolini does not bluff, he will probably overwhelm the German army. In 1934, Italy would


  • possess more airplanes (there would not yet be an official German Luftwafffe)
  • the same applies to tanks
  • Italy would have more manpower, Germany would yet not have officially re-introduced the draft and would have to rely on the 100,000-men Reichswehr, WW-1-veterans and militia cadres (i.e. the SA)
  • have the possibility to diplomatically isolate Germany
I reckon that while the Austrians would delay a German advance towards Vienna, the Italians would, with Austrian backing, simply move northwards from the Brenner. Tyrolia's capital Innsbruck could be reachable within hours for an Italian vanguard - and being there means half the way to the German border already.
Splitting there, Italy could test several routes into Germany: Fernpass, going via Scharnitz to Garmisch or simply go the long way down the river Inn. Wherever a breakthrough can be achieved, this would not only mean entering the Reich, but also to leave the more mountaineous parts of the Alps.
From there, it is less than 100 km to Munich. Now logistics count: how many troops can be supplied through the Alps? Also, can the Italian airforce manage air-superiority from their bases in Northern Italy? If so, Munich will be the first city in Europe to prove Douhet, day by day.

If the Italians manage to reach Munich (they should under the given circumstances- but on the other hand, they are Italians; it would be historical irony of the highest degree if they acted competenly if having a war against Hitler's regime), then it is game over for the Anschluss...

Going from there
 
Even if Hitler does call his bluff and invades, what actual resistance would the Austrians put up?

I think you might end up with confusing clashes of Austrian jagers shooting Itallian troops and seeing German troops move in.

Even with the 100,000 men Reichswher many Austrians will see Italy as the invader, no matter the facts.

This action against Germany would naturally push Italy to the allies, so it might get a free hand in Ethiopia *if it chooses to invade* as well as Yugoslavia and Albania if they so desire them.
 
Another question is how does France react? If it decides to act against Germany the Nazis are in trouble!

Definitely. But we would need an expert on French politics of the 30s (which I am not) to determine whether 1934 would be too early to let Hitler have his way. I would say that France might do some provoking things, though at this point of time without actually saying it goes to war:


  • postpone the Saarland plebiscite (for the duration of war/until regime change in Germany/ indefinitely)
  • re-occupy the West bank of the Rhine "for security reasons"
If France goes to war, though, I assume we would quickly have the CSR in the game as well.

But what would really be more important is that war with a major power (Italy) at such a point of time would probably set the fuse for a Reichswehr coup. In 1934, the army is much less prepared than in 1938 when "peace for our time" actually stopped any plans to overthrow Hitler. Also, ahead of August 1934, there is not yet an oath to Hitler's person.

Hitler himself wouldn't have had the time to distuingish himself as seemingly brilliant by this time as he did later on. An unconvincingly running war would make the need to remove him from power quite urgent.
 
I think that what may be overlooked is that in the early 1930's Austria had a very friendly relationship with Italy. The Right wing government was considering the restoration of the Monarchy and was hostile to the Nazis. Indeed the Austrian Military was quite willing to fight the Germans.
Germany would not be able to deploy more than a fraction of its military for any invasion as it was surrounded by hostile states such as France, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Thus what could Hitler send- 10-20.000 troops. They would be more than matched by the Austrians fighting on their home ground. The Czechs might also intervene.

One could easily see the collapse of the Nazi hold on power. Remember in 1934 Hitler had a lot weaker hold on the German Military so a coup by the Army was a lot stronger possibility then,
 
I think that what may be overlooked is that in the early 1930's Austria had a very friendly relationship with Italy. The Right wing government was considering the restoration of the Monarchy and was hostile to the Nazis. Indeed the Austrian Military was quite willing to fight the Germans.
Germany would not be able to deploy more than a fraction of its military for any invasion as it was surrounded by hostile states such as France, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Thus what could Hitler send- 10-20.000 troops. They would be more than matched by the Austrians fighting on their home ground. The Czechs might also intervene.

One could easily see the collapse of the Nazi hold on power. Remember in 1934 Hitler had a lot weaker hold on the German Military so a coup by the Army was a lot stronger possibility then,

I completely agree, though the Germans wouldn't come with 20,000 men. The Austrian army numbered 30,000 and could easily defend themselves in such a scenario.
We have to take into account that in the event of war, already in 1934, the Nazis would quickly expand the Reichswehr as fast as possible. That doesn't make it an army of millions, but I can see its size easily double or triple within a few weeks.

I also agree that the Austrians wouldn't shoot the Italians (as implied earlier) which were their main ally, which again was no secret. It is an assumption as if the US Army, in case of a Russian attack in Alaska, would fight against Canadian NATO-troops rushing in to help.
 
Boys here we can have a interesting timeline.
A war in 1934 may have important consequences.

1-Mussolini defeat Hitler,but Italian Army lost important resources,and the invasion of Abyssinia is postponed for some years or forever.

2-Hitler and nazism can survive in 1934 to a defeat?
I think no.
So Mussolini is the guy that have destroyed nazism and saved the day.

What now?
Fascism become more presentable and with more appeal (so,for exemple Mosley have better cards in UK)?
But is also possible that fascism become also more "democratic" in anyway?
 

Susano

Banned
I completely agree, though the Germans wouldn't come with 20,000 men. The Austrian army numbered 30,000 and could easily defend themselves in such a scenario.
How loyal would the Austrian army be, though? After all, pan-Germanism was big in Austria.
 
The Army's officers and enlisted men were quite willing to fight to defend Austria against any invaders. In 1938 at least One divisional commander of the Austrian army resisted the German move into Austria. His men obeyed his orders and fired on the German troops.
 
The government under Dollfuß was certainly anti-Anschluss at that time. Mind you it was effectively a dictature and many politicians were supporting the Großdeutschland-movement strongly.
The military at that time was weird from my point of view. Most of the Officers from the Austrian-Hungarian Army resigned somewhen in 1919-20 after the defeat and subsequent devision. What was left was a few mainly lower ranked officers how were quite young in most cases. Sure, there were a few old ones left, but more or less anyone of significance left. I'd see those people pretty loyal to Austria and fighting the Germans, if not with much vigour.
The paramilitary, like the Heimwehr on the other hand will offer strong resistance. If I remember right they even outnumbered the army for some time, but no idea if this was true in 34. On the other hand they will likely lack good supplies.
The average citizen on the other hand would likely welcome German invaders with open arms. After all they are fighting the Italians who stole old Austrian core regions in South Tyrol.

I hope I didn't tell too much wrong things, I take this from history course at school and it's been some time since then.
 
What if Hitler decides Mussolini is bluffing and decides to invade Austria?

There are decent chances that Hitler pulls it off. Mussolini's military placement was a bluff (although he could later move troops to the border) and and Dolfuss was assassinated, leaving Schussnigg as his successor. Schussnigg, of course, ultimately refused to fight the German move into Austria.

Austria doesn't fight, Italy is out of position and the Anglo-French view the move as one more onerous clause of the ToV being rescinded.

If Italy does fight Germany, the outcome of the war will be a slow German grindout against Italy. Germany has a tiny armed forces and Italian Alpine Division are one of the few branches of Mussolini's army that didn't totally suck.

A Dogpile against Germany, while the right thing to do, would be very unlikely--France and the UK have no stomach to fight at this point. It is quie possible that the Saarland gets annexed by France, or that other reprisals are possible, but the UK and France aren't going to fight a war for Austria or for Italy. Now, the UK and France will push Hitler into making a peace deal with Italy that's not totally insane, but that's about as far as it goes.

Germany gets Austria. Germany gets the South Tirol, and Germany gets Fruilli and Venice. Mussolini is removed from power, probably a general is appointed to become the Italian PM after the debacle, and Germany is exhaustated after two to three years of alpine fighting. Hitler's plans for a war to build a greater Germany didn't go down the way he thought they should, but I'd have to think that there would be little desire to wage a larger war afterward. Hitler, unable to win the peace afterward and whose interference in the conflict earned the disapproval of the armed forces, is removed in 1939. The National Socialist Party remains powerful but disillusioned with Hitler, who isn't anywhere near as mythically powerful as OTL.

Whoever replaces Hitler will find German finances in serious trouble and troubling abuses, which probably discredit Hitler's leadership but leave the Nazi Party as a viable leadership body.
 
Schussnigg, of course, ultimately refused to fight the German move into Austria.

...but under completely different circumstances (I would like to add that technically, Arhur Seyß-Inquart already was Chancellor during the Anschluss).

In 1938, Austria couldn't rely on anybody to defend its souvereignty. It had been isolated for years and had undergone a period of renewed German economical blackmailings.

Putting up resistance against German forces which were in now way comparable to those of 1934 would have been more than suicidal.

It is a bit of a pity, because from 1934-38, most the Austrian army did was to prepare a defensive war against Germany; it was virtually its main purpose at the time.

Just like Germany, Austria re-armed but could of course not compete against its Northern neighbour.

I agree that Austria's willingness to fight Germany is THE main factor in such a scenario. This willingness is debatable, but I strongly lean to the opinion that in 1934, political and military leadership would have made the army fight.

(A word on Pan-Germanism. It was high, but politically it depended very much on the circumstances. After 1933, no Austrian political party with the exception of the National-Socialists promoted Pan-Germanism.)

The scenario on what follows is interesting and a very good idea, though I still favour mine. ;) Funny thing in your scenario is that you create an Italy which would go Irredentist on Großdeutschland with such borders!
 
Top