If not Austria, who are the Nazis' first victim?

Following WWII, a notion came up that Austria was the first victim of Nazi expansionism. I'd argue the Austrians were a lot more into the whole "joining Germany" thing than that notion proposes, but that's besides the point.

Let's say Italy never gives the go-ahead to Hitler on annexing Austria. Who would be the Nazis' first victim of TTL?
  • The portions of Sudetenland that were contiguous with Germany perhaps?
  • Maybe marginal things like Memel, Danzig, Eupen-Melmedy, and North Schleswig?
  • Perhaps demands are made of Poland. An extraterritorial railroad and highway would be the hypothetical minimum. Stepping it up, West Prussia and Kashubia. Going beyond that, the 1914 boundary. Then there's the furthest point...

I can sort of see imagine Hitler going for Sudetenland first, then goading the Poles into diplomatic isolation via the Polish annexation of Zaolzie and Cieszyn from Czechoslovakia.
 
I doubt that Mussolini's go ahead was all that important. More like, the guy is going to do this no matter what, better not to show that I really disliked this but could do nothing to stop it.

That said, the sequence is logical. If you don't gobble Austria first - in which, as you mention, there was a part of the population who was in favor of the annexation - you don't end up with a jaws-like position around Bohemia and Moravia. You don't end up within a half-day drive from Bratislava, with the obvious leverage this gives you on the Slovakians. You also don't get the additional divisions and motorized units of the Austrian army.

Danzig is no small potato. The Poles are ready to fight for that, and they'll never cave in for any other of the demands on that list. Driving into a non-resisting Austria with the German army of that year is feasible. Invading Poland from the border lines of that year (note how the geostrategic position was further improved by the creation of the Protectorate and of a puppet Slovakian state that even contributed three second-line divisions for Case White), with the army of that year... is probably unsuccessful.

Memel is possible, but it's pretty irrelevant. The other territories are even less interesting.
 
Last edited:
My guess is that if Musso backs Austria, Hitler engages in a high stakes bluff with him that probably ends with Hitler being deposed.
 
Thinking about it, I would add that every time you eat up some territory, you are also eating up a sizable chunk of the world's goodwill, in particular that of the British (the French already fear you fondly). So doing that for Austria, then the Sudeten, then the rest of Czechoslovakia makes some sense, considering how much you're gaining. After the third strike, no British PM will believe one word out of your mouth, but at least you've already bagged the London Naval Agreement, and all the advantages that came with those three annexations.
Starting with Memel, then Malmédy, then Danzig is really foolish; not only you gain nearly nothing, but also you are squandering away that goodwill for that nothing.
 

gurgu

Banned
Austria is the only option available:
-Hitler's original country, annexing it to Germany makes him 100% German so there is no chance someone might contest him
-mountain defenses on south, and good resources, also gold to pay the mefo bills

i think that if a war outbreaks in that moment Hitler vs Austria,italy and Hungary( pact of Rome) might even loose because the french and British won't let Germany expand and take even control of italy so is italy with allies from day 1, even Czechoslovakia might join up fearing German expansionism
 
I doubt that Mussolini's go ahead was all that important. More like, the guy is going to do this no matter what, better not to show that I really disliked this but could do nothing to stop it.

...

Professor Kline-Albrandht a specialist in 20th Century Europe told us in his lecture that Italys agreement was critical. The previous effort have ben opposed by Italy, with the threat of military support. That left Hitler weaker politically, both nationaly & within the party. He & Ribbentrop had expended a lot of effort to persuade Mussolini to change his attitude on this. A that the pair had no idea until a day or so before the occupation attempt what Mussolini would do. He felt that calling it off a second time would weaken him. But attempting occupation when the Austrian government had foreign support & would attempt opposition would be much worse.
 
Professor Kline-Albrandht a specialist in 20th Century Europe told us in his lecture that Italys agreement was critical. The previous effort have ben opposed by Italy, with the threat of military support. That left Hitler weaker politically, both nationaly & within the party. He & Ribbentrop had expended a lot of effort to persuade Mussolini to change his attitude on this. A that the pair had no idea until a day or so before the occupation attempt what Mussolini would do. He felt that calling it off a second time would weaken him. But attempting occupation when the Austrian government had foreign support & would attempt opposition would be much worse.

Maybe he's more informed than me. Note however that your summary describes what were Hitler's perceptions of the significance of a continued opposition of Italy to the move. Maybe I was considering more what Italy could actually have done in practice, if Germany had gone ahead with it, and Mussolini's perceptions.
Naturally, what counted were Hitler's perceptions.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Starting with Memel, then Malmédy, then Danzig is really foolish; not only you gain nearly nothing, but also you are squandering away that goodwill for that nothing.

Malmédy would seem to me to be a particularly risky early pressure point. Since it is formally Belgian land, the Belgians may resist and have instant French and British backing. Or, if Hitler gets away with it, Belgian neutralist opinion may be discredited and Belgium and France may be more prone to deliberate collaboration later.
 
Malmédy would seem to me to be a particularly risky early pressure point. Since it is formally Belgian land, the Belgians may resist and have instant French and British backing. Or, if Hitler gets away with it, Belgian neutralist opinion may be discredited and Belgium and France may be more prone to deliberate collaboration later.

Didn't the Belgians consider selling Eupen-Melmedy to Germany in the 20s?
 
Following WWII, a notion came up that Austria was the first victim of Nazi expansionism. I'd argue the Austrians were a lot more into the whole "joining Germany" thing than that notion proposes, but that's besides the point.

Let's say Italy never gives the go-ahead to Hitler on annexing Austria. Who would be the Nazis' first victim of TTL?
  • The portions of Sudetenland that were contiguous with Germany perhaps?
  • Maybe marginal things like Memel, Danzig, Eupen-Melmedy, and North Schleswig?
  • Perhaps demands are made of Poland. An extraterritorial railroad and highway would be the hypothetical minimum. Stepping it up, West Prussia and Kashubia. Going beyond that, the 1914 boundary. Then there's the furthest point...

I can sort of see imagine Hitler going for Sudetenland first, then goading the Poles into diplomatic isolation via the Polish annexation of Zaolzie and Cieszyn from Czechoslovakia.

Memel might be an easy pickup, since poor Lithuania has few friends willing to fight for it.

But Austria provided the biggest lump of German-speakers available for Hitler to grab, and it already had both sizable movements for unification with Germany and a native Nazi Party. It being Hitler's land of birth was also, uh, no small factor.

In short, there is a great deal driving the Anschluss as the first and easiest target, once the Rhineland and Saar are brought back fully into the fold.
 
Professor Kline-Albrandht a specialist in 20th Century Europe told us in his lecture that Italys agreement was critical. The previous effort have ben opposed by Italy, with the threat of military support. That left Hitler weaker politically, both nationaly & within the party. He & Ribbentrop had expended a lot of effort to persuade Mussolini to change his attitude on this. A that the pair had no idea until a day or so before the occupation attempt what Mussolini would do. He felt that calling it off a second time would weaken him. But attempting occupation when the Austrian government had foreign support & would attempt opposition would be much worse.

I think the professor is right, and the evidence is that Hitler himself thought so, too.

The difficulty is, Austria really has to be the first "grab" in many ways.

So continued opposition by The Moose in 1938 probably just ends up delaying the entire lebensraum project altogether, until German rearmament is such that they can either intimidate Mussolini into acquiescence, or send the army in regardless of Italian opposition.
 
The actual interesting question there is if Germany sent their army against Italy anyway would it provoke France and Britain, especially over Austria? Not necessarily the governments but the people. The public perception of a Great War ally fighting the Great War enemy in active warfare to maintain the treaty that ended the war would be very different from what we got.
 
Austria wasn't a "victim". Several Austrians (Jews, socialists, observant Catholics) without doubt were, but the country on the whole was an enthusiastic accomplice to its own undoing.
 
Didn't the Belgians consider selling Eupen-Melmedy to Germany in the 20s?
Yeah and France talked them out of it. I could see Belgium selling Eupen-Malmedy if the price is right and if Germany had not proven themselves to be unreliable or a threat. I guess it has to be somewhere before the remilitarisation of the Rhineland.

Mind you, I disagree with Michele's analysis that every annexation would turn Britain and France more and more against you. It realy depends on how it happens. If Germany buys Eupen-Malmedy from the Belgians quite early on, people would have forgotten it at the time of the Anschluss. If Germany put a knife on Belgians throat just after they marched into Sudetenland, that would have angered Britain and France. I think a smart diplomatic Germany could get away with quite a lot. That said, the Nazi's were neither smart nor diplomatic.
 
Top