Peaceful, sane Anschluss in the 20th century

Is there any way of making a union between Austria (proper) and Germany happen, with a POD no earlier than 1900, without either of the two being led by genocidal lunatics? Communist revolution is a cop-out.

I know how much the powers of the early German Empire were against Grossdeutschland, but was that also the case with their early-20th successors? If Austria-Hungary falls into a state of anarchy, say (which doesn't ever seem unreasonable), is it plausible to have the Germans just pick them up?
 
Is there any way of making a union between Austria (proper) and Germany happen, with a POD no earlier than 1900, without either of the two being led by genocidal lunatics? Communist revolution is a cop-out.

I know how much the powers of the early German Empire were against Grossdeutschland, but was that also the case with their early-20th successors? If Austria-Hungary falls into a state of anarchy, say (which doesn't ever seem unreasonable), is it plausible to have the Germans just pick them up?
In short yes
 
Austria-Hungary was absolutely vital in the European balance of power of the early 20th century.

Austria imploding with a PoD of 1900 is very unlikely unless WW1 is avoided or Franz Ferdinand isn't assassinated. Either way, you can be sure as hell that ths Great Powers will intervene of one of their own falls apart, not just Germany. The latter might not get what the whacky pangermanists want.
 
Germany stays social democratic into the 30s and Austria has a civil war between the republicans and the Austrian fascists backed by Italy, Germany intervenes and post war as per the Austrian socialists wishes they annex Austria.
 
There was a proposed Zollunion that was shot down in 1931 by one vote in the Hague primarily due to French and Italian objections. I think there's a POD there. Such a victory would strengthen the Austrian government and prevent the rise of Dolfuß.
 

Deleted member 1487

There was a proposed Zollunion that was shot down in 1931 by one vote in the Hague primarily due to French and Italian objections. I think there's a POD there. Such a victory would strengthen the Austrian government and prevent the rise of Dolfuß.
Probably the rise of Hitler too and avoid the banking failure in Austria that deepened the Depression in Europe.
 
IIRC the collapse of the Creditanstalt predates the ruling on the Zollunion. However, the ensuing boost it would give to the status quo in both Germany and Austria would go a long way towards preventing Hitler's rise.

It would also likely intensify the German economic penetration of Southeastern Europe earlier than OTL.
 

Deleted member 1487

IIRC the collapse of the Creditanstalt predates the ruling on the Zollunion. However, the ensuing boost it would give to the status quo in both Germany and Austria would go a long way towards preventing Hitler's rise.

It would also likely intensify the German economic penetration of Southeastern Europe earlier than OTL.
IIRC the collapse of the Creditanstalt was an effort by the French to punish the Austrians and Germans for trying to subvert Versailles, as they pulled their cash out, which screwed their balance sheet.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3133667?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
This article reveals that the diplomatic and financial history of 1931 was even more turbulent than believed to date. New documents found at the Bank of England show that an intricate system of cross-deposits was set up by the Austrian Central Bank covertly to direct funds to the Creditanstalt via American and British banks - to compensate it for taking over the bankrupt Bodencreditanstalt - suggesting that the received accounts of the collapse of the Creditanstalt need to be revised. Further, documents have come to light which show that France exacerbated the 1931 run on the Austrian schilling in order to force Austria to abandon the Austro-German customs union project of that year. This article considers the relationship between the collapse of the Creditanstalt and the abandonment of the Austro-German customs union, incorporating the new evidence to provide a novel interpretation of the financial diplomacy of that year.
 
Quite liberal application of the word war when the conflict barely lasted a week.

If Germany was social democrat and the civil war dragged into months I could see a german intervention
... which would trigger Anglo-French intervention at a very flagrant breach of Versailles. And that is no Rhineland, that would be a thinly veiled invasion and annexation. Especially since it wouldn't be like Hitler's fait accompli either.
 

Perkeo

Banned
No Hitler may be enough. The ToV was decomposing as soon as the ink was dry, and sooner or later appeasement is going to take over, with the difference that ITTL it actually works.

Without even WWI it's a harder nut. Perhaps Germany unnites with Russia against A-H, but that likely requires a POD just before 1900.
 
... which would trigger Anglo-French intervention at a very flagrant breach of Versailles. And that is no Rhineland, that would be a thinly veiled invasion and annexation. Especially since it wouldn't be like Hitler's fait accompli either.

The entente would start a war over a democratic government of Austria choosing to accept German support and join them, they didn't even intervene to protect a country that didn't want to be annexed (Czechoslovakia)
 
The entente would start a war over a democratic government of Austria choosing to accept German support and join them, they didn't even intervene to protect a country that didn't want to be annexed (Czechoslovakia)
We're talking about different circumstances here. First, Germany would be actively intervening in a Civil War with the specific aim of annexing it. This is no Czechoslovakia where Hitler's aggressive posturing got him the Sudetes and left Czechia completely defenseless. The Entente could do nothing even if it tried after that (unless it tried before the Munich agreement). Both of Hitler's invasions were faits accompli with minimal-to-no resistance. In this case, Austria is already in a state of civil war and, unlike the Spanish one, Germany is directly intervening instead of sending 'volunteers'.
 
We're talking about different circumstances here. First, Germany would be actively intervening in a Civil War with the specific aim of annexing it. This is no Czechoslovakia where Hitler's aggressive posturing got him the Sudetes and left Czechia completely defenseless. The Entente could do nothing even if it tried after that (unless it tried before the Munich agreement). Both of Hitler's invasions were faits accompli with minimal-to-no resistance. In this case, Austria is already in a state of civil war and, unlike the Spanish one, Germany is directly intervening instead of sending 'volunteers'.

And you're talking about 2 states that have the same language and culture. The same Entente wouldn't risk starting another war considering they had been bled dry, aka, the same reason they didn't fight during the Anschluss.
 
Top