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

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Responding to the OP

The portions of Sudetenland that were contiguous with Germany perhaps?

Nah- the leverage is not the same to "chew" on Czechoslovakian territories when Germany only has the "mandible" of Silesia, Saxony and Bavaria, but lacks the "jawbone" of Austria. Plus, there's no sensible historical claim to the broader German public without inheriting Austria's claim.

Maybe marginal things like Memel, Danzig, Eupen-Melmedy, and North Schleswig?

I agree with Athelstane that Memel would be the easiest pickup, and, if they hold off on Austria in 1938, they could maybe do an adventure against Memel that year or in 1939 and get away with it because of Lithuanian weakness. An ideal situation, but one the Poles would probably be too intelligent to fall for, would be to partition Lithuania with the Poles. If the Poles are seen in partnership with the Nazis it will reduce sympathy for them. For that reason, Hitler might be prepared to support a Polish claim to almost all of Lithuania except Memel in the short term, with the idea of coming back around to make demands against Poland in later years.

While the Poles wanted to unify with the Lithuanians, and certainly wanted to solidy their claim to Vilnius/Wilno, I don't think they'd want to be seen doing any of this in tandem with German aggression or bullying.

Eupen-Malmedy - it could be done if the Belgians were willing to sell and the Germans willing to buy, but Germany was not flush with cash and would not want to expend resources that could support later conquests to raise hard currency to purchase territory.

North Schleswig - no. The "juice would not be worth the squeeze" considering the Germans never bothered moving the border even after they totally occupied Denmark in 1940. Hitler just did not put alot of value in adjusting the German-Danish border, and seems to have suffered no domestic ill consequence because of his inaction on the issue.

Danzig - no, because it's not predictable that Germany could win decisive control in a crisis without war anyway, and because they might as well use it as a pretext for making wider demands on Poland.

So, in summary, if Hitler needs to do something instead of Austria in the first half of 1938 to show territorial revisionist success, Memel is his only/best option.

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...

If Austria is still not lined up to be the victim in late 1938 or in 1939, Poland could be set up as the alternate victim of a "splendid little war". Hitler is not likely to be ready diplomatically or militarily to commit to war on Poland during 1938. However, between his build-up, and diplomatic outreach to the Soviet Union, he might convince himself that he could launch a splendid little war to partition Poland with the Soviet Union, and the Wehrmacht would think it is a grand idea.

Theoretically, if the Germans and Soviets take down Poland on OTL's schedule, and the west and Italy do nothing, the Germans may be able to frighten all the Danubian and Balkan states into puppet-hood.

But this requires Germany to have several diplomatic lucky breaks in a row. Any of the following could disrupt the plan:
1) The Soviets refuse to cooperate despite the temptation to gain desired lands from Poland.
2) Regardless of what the Soviets do, when the westerners see this is a war to destroy the Polish state, they might declare war.
3) Outraged at destruction of Poland, a Nazi deal with the Soviets, or both, London, Paris and Rome may coalesce around the view that the Nazis need to be contained, so Austrian and Czechoslovakian territory and independence must be guaranteed.
 
Last edited:
Responding to the OP ... Theoretically, if the Germans and Soviets take down Poland on OTL's schedule, and the west and Italy do nothing, the Germans may be able to frighten all the Danubian and Balkan states into puppet-hood.

But this requires Germany to have several diplomatic lucky breaks in a . Any of the following could disrupt the plan:
1) The Soviets refuse to cooperate despite the temptation to gain desired lands from Poland.
2) Regardless of what the Soviets do, when the westerners see this is a war to destroy the Polish state, they might declare war.
3) Outraged at destruction of Poland, a Nazi deal with the Soviets, or both, London, Paris and Rome may coalesce around the view that the Nazis need to be contained, so Austrian and Czechoslovakian territory and independence must be guaranteed.

There also the question of how necessary Austrias financial reserves were to keeping the nazi government afloat 1938-39? Can fraudulent bookkeeping keep things going until the Cezch banks are looted in march 1939? Or were the Austrian banks & government reserves essential?
 
Austria, as a country, was not a victim of the Nazis. Most of them had wanted Anschluss ever since the Entente outlawed it in the Treaty of Saint Germain-en-Laye, so most of them (excluding the Nazis' ideological enemies) were literally asking to be annexed into the Reich. In 1927, a election was held in which 65% of the popular vote was won by pro-unification parties. I should stress though, that in the mid-1930s, left-wing Austrian parties, while they wanted unification with Germany, they didn't wan to be part of the Third Reich, if that makes any sense.

I think the first victims of the Nazis, believe or not, were other Nazis, namely the victims of the Night of the Long Knives. Say what you will about the Brownshirts, but they were brutally arrested, tortured and murdered by their own fellow Party members without trial. I know these exactly weren't innocent people, but a victim doesn't have to be innocent to be a victim.
 
Last edited:
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.

Well yeah...

Part of the reason appeasement happened was that, according to the principles of self determination, Austria wanted to be part of Germany. The Sudetenland was rather more ambiguous but still somewhat grounded on "Germany uniting with its exiles" though of course one should have pretty much immediately asked what would stop them from going for Danzig next.
That being said if Hitler had left the Czechs alone after Munich he might have been able to get away with pressuring for a plebiscite in Danzig IMO but of course then he wouldn't have been Hitler. After carving Czechloslovakia it was rather obvious that the Nazis were after continental domination, and Poland caving to german demands over Danzig would have probably followed up with more demands, like say the USSR wanting Lviv.
 
That sounds like a way to excuse the German people.
The thing about totalitarian regimes is that they turn their population into both victim and collaborator by default. It's how they work- prey on human apathy and fear and instinct to conform with the group, nail down any still brave enough to speak out, and the silence becomes a prison all its own.
 
The Nazis' first victims outside the 1933 boundaries of Germany--apart from people killed in the abortive 1934 Austrian putsch--were anti-Nazi Saarlanders.
 
There also the question of how necessary Austrias financial reserves were to keeping the nazi government afloat 1938-39? Can fraudulent bookkeeping keep things going until the Cezch banks are looted in march 1939? Or were the Austrian banks & government reserves essential?

My understanding is that Germany face facing fairly immanent economic meltdown if it hadn't secured the Austrian gold reserves when it did.

If Mussolini stands firm on Austria, the Nazis have to change strategy, and either start noticeably reducing civilian quality of life in order to throw the economy into the fire even faster to keep fuelling their military expansion or reduce the pace of their militarization in order to produce more goods for export.

The first way could do great damage to the Nazi position within Germany and may not allow the Nazis to re-arm fast enough anyway or may inflict too much damage to the German economy for them to hit run-away conquest point as they did IOTL. The second way will likely be too slow for Germany to decisively pull ahead of France, Britain and the Soviet Union in their re armament, which is decidedly bad for the Nazis achieving their goals.

That being said if Hitler had left the Czechs alone after Munich he might have been able to get away with pressuring for a plebiscite in Danzig IMO but of course then he wouldn't have been Hitler.

Well, the other thing was that occupying Bohemia and Moravia gave the Nazis an important economic boost. Leaving Bohemia and Moravia until after Poland had been targeted would have meant the Germans were significantly weaker if Poland opted for war.

fasquardon
 
Top