Is there a history of Austria in WWII?
Moderator: George Lepre
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Guys,
I have just dug out the names of the commanding officers of the Austrian-raised 44th and 45th Infantry, 2nd Mountain and 2nd Panzer Divisions. (I could find no COs named for 3rd Mountain Division).
Out of the 25 names I could quickly establish, 20 were certainly German-born and three more probably so. Only two were certainly Austrian-born, both of whom were appointed before the war. No Austrian seems ever to have commanded 2nd "Vienna" Panzer Division.
Therefore, on the sample I took, I couldn't find a single Austrian-born general being given command of an Austruan-raised division after the outbreak of war!
I used the Feldgrau officer biography facility to work this out. It is highly recommended.
Cheers,
Sid.
I have just dug out the names of the commanding officers of the Austrian-raised 44th and 45th Infantry, 2nd Mountain and 2nd Panzer Divisions. (I could find no COs named for 3rd Mountain Division).
Out of the 25 names I could quickly establish, 20 were certainly German-born and three more probably so. Only two were certainly Austrian-born, both of whom were appointed before the war. No Austrian seems ever to have commanded 2nd "Vienna" Panzer Division.
Therefore, on the sample I took, I couldn't find a single Austrian-born general being given command of an Austruan-raised division after the outbreak of war!
I used the Feldgrau officer biography facility to work this out. It is highly recommended.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
sid,
what dimension had the "sponsoring" of the 1934 coup by German Nazis? My knowledge is limited to a few persons acting and they all were native Austrian Nazis. I also remember there was a defined "Austro-Facism" acting independent from Germany but at last with the same target: Anschluss.
what dimension had the "sponsoring" of the 1934 coup by German Nazis? My knowledge is limited to a few persons acting and they all were native Austrian Nazis. I also remember there was a defined "Austro-Facism" acting independent from Germany but at last with the same target: Anschluss.
Pedites pugnas decernent
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Grunt,
The coup was sponsored from Germany, but executed by Austrian Nazis.
The main sponsor seems to have been Himmler and the coup in Vienna was attempted by the SS with little SA support. (Remember, this was only the month after the assassination of the SA leadership by the SS in nearby Munich.) However, the uprising that followed in Styria and Carinthia was largely by the local SA.
General Adam, commander of the German 7th Division in Munich, received a phone call from Hitler on the morning of the coup telling him to prepare weapons for the Austrian Legion, then in exile in Germany.
However, the coup collapsed so fast that Hitler had to distance himself from it within hours. He even went so far as to reprimand his ambassador in Vienna, who had mediated the surrender of the coup leaders.
The government of Austria under the assassinated Dolfuss and his successor Schussnig (spelling?) could be described as Austro-Fascist, but it was not in favour of Anschluss. Instead it leaned towards Mussolini's Italian Fascism. Mussolini backed the Austrians very strongly over the 1934 coup, even moving troops to the Austrian border. However, the formation of the Rome-Berlin Axis cut off this avenue of support before March 1938.
Cheers,
Sid.
The coup was sponsored from Germany, but executed by Austrian Nazis.
The main sponsor seems to have been Himmler and the coup in Vienna was attempted by the SS with little SA support. (Remember, this was only the month after the assassination of the SA leadership by the SS in nearby Munich.) However, the uprising that followed in Styria and Carinthia was largely by the local SA.
General Adam, commander of the German 7th Division in Munich, received a phone call from Hitler on the morning of the coup telling him to prepare weapons for the Austrian Legion, then in exile in Germany.
However, the coup collapsed so fast that Hitler had to distance himself from it within hours. He even went so far as to reprimand his ambassador in Vienna, who had mediated the surrender of the coup leaders.
The government of Austria under the assassinated Dolfuss and his successor Schussnig (spelling?) could be described as Austro-Fascist, but it was not in favour of Anschluss. Instead it leaned towards Mussolini's Italian Fascism. Mussolini backed the Austrians very strongly over the 1934 coup, even moving troops to the Austrian border. However, the formation of the Rome-Berlin Axis cut off this avenue of support before March 1938.
Cheers,
Sid.
sid,
Thank you for this lesson. I was aware about the italian troop deployment along the border but until now more regarded it a behaviour born from competition whi will be THE leader of fascism. Indeed I was not aware about the Austrians leaning towards "classic" fascism. This is very interesting with the background of southern Tyrol in italian hands, which should have produced a more anti-italian position in Austria (at least I expected this). It seems there is another proof that ideological ties sometimes are contradictary to "national interest"?
Thank you for this lesson. I was aware about the italian troop deployment along the border but until now more regarded it a behaviour born from competition whi will be THE leader of fascism. Indeed I was not aware about the Austrians leaning towards "classic" fascism. This is very interesting with the background of southern Tyrol in italian hands, which should have produced a more anti-italian position in Austria (at least I expected this). It seems there is another proof that ideological ties sometimes are contradictary to "national interest"?
Pedites pugnas decernent
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Grunt,
Hitler was so grateful to Mussolini for allowing the Anschluss that South Tyrol became the only ethnically German territory Hitler voluntarily conceded to a foreigner. He agreed to drop German claims and to evacuate all German-speaking South Tyroleans for resettlement in Poland. About half were removed before Mussolini was overthrown in 1943 and resettlement stopped.
Cheers,
Sid.
Hitler was so grateful to Mussolini for allowing the Anschluss that South Tyrol became the only ethnically German territory Hitler voluntarily conceded to a foreigner. He agreed to drop German claims and to evacuate all German-speaking South Tyroleans for resettlement in Poland. About half were removed before Mussolini was overthrown in 1943 and resettlement stopped.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Doktor Krollspell
- Patron
- Posts: 2474
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:57 am
- Location: Sweden
Hello again Sid!
First of all, thank you (and all the other) for this very interesting thread. As much as it has been very informing it also raises several questions. I would like to comment on the dominating theme in this thread, i e that the Austrian Germans of the Ostmark province of the Greater German Reich weren't (or considered) as devoted, or reliable subjects/nazis as the "German" Germans.
This fact, or statement, can only be understood when one consider Austria's history in the early 20th century. Just 20 years prior to the Anschluss, the Austro-Hungarian Double Monarchy, i e the Habsburg Empire, lost World War One. So in November of 1918, Austria changed from being an European Great Power with a population of over 65 million and dominating the south-east part of Europe from the time of Middle Ages to the modern Republic of Austria with a population of just 8 million in a "tiny" country. Adding insult to insult, a bunch of newly created, independent neighbours that just recently were the subjects of the Emperor in Vienna had become larger than their former masters.
I talked earlier of national "myths" but this transformation of Austria in 1918 was (all the way up to the Eighties in my opinion) an enormous National Trauma (inferiority complex/hurt national pride/revenge feelings) for many Austrians. This event had impact Twenty years later during the Anschluss. You can argue for the Austrians being less Nazi than the Germans or, as some would say, the Austrians being more Nazi than the Germans. Being taken over by Germany and annihilated as an independent nation was certainly the final blow for many Austrians, making them alienated from the Nazi German cause, thus less nazi/reliable or...
Being taken over by Germany meant that being part of a both "Greater" national purpose (being powerful again) and being part of a "greater" germanic purpose with an ideology bending for revenge.
When I speak of these questions with Austrians, they tend to agree that both arguments are valid, altough I can't claim to wich side being most right.
When it cames to the staged referendum in April of 1938 were both Austrians and Germans could take a stand if Austria should be a part of Germany or not, the results were in both countries about 99% FOR the Anschluss. I recall reading about modern research into this referendum, trying to analyse the real results. As I remember (I could be wrong) the research indicated that there were a clear majority of Austrians voting and that the actual results also were a win for the Anschluss of Austria to Greaater Germany. I hope any Forum member can prove this right or wrong.
Regards,
Krollspell
First of all, thank you (and all the other) for this very interesting thread. As much as it has been very informing it also raises several questions. I would like to comment on the dominating theme in this thread, i e that the Austrian Germans of the Ostmark province of the Greater German Reich weren't (or considered) as devoted, or reliable subjects/nazis as the "German" Germans.
This fact, or statement, can only be understood when one consider Austria's history in the early 20th century. Just 20 years prior to the Anschluss, the Austro-Hungarian Double Monarchy, i e the Habsburg Empire, lost World War One. So in November of 1918, Austria changed from being an European Great Power with a population of over 65 million and dominating the south-east part of Europe from the time of Middle Ages to the modern Republic of Austria with a population of just 8 million in a "tiny" country. Adding insult to insult, a bunch of newly created, independent neighbours that just recently were the subjects of the Emperor in Vienna had become larger than their former masters.
I talked earlier of national "myths" but this transformation of Austria in 1918 was (all the way up to the Eighties in my opinion) an enormous National Trauma (inferiority complex/hurt national pride/revenge feelings) for many Austrians. This event had impact Twenty years later during the Anschluss. You can argue for the Austrians being less Nazi than the Germans or, as some would say, the Austrians being more Nazi than the Germans. Being taken over by Germany and annihilated as an independent nation was certainly the final blow for many Austrians, making them alienated from the Nazi German cause, thus less nazi/reliable or...
Being taken over by Germany meant that being part of a both "Greater" national purpose (being powerful again) and being part of a "greater" germanic purpose with an ideology bending for revenge.
When I speak of these questions with Austrians, they tend to agree that both arguments are valid, altough I can't claim to wich side being most right.
When it cames to the staged referendum in April of 1938 were both Austrians and Germans could take a stand if Austria should be a part of Germany or not, the results were in both countries about 99% FOR the Anschluss. I recall reading about modern research into this referendum, trying to analyse the real results. As I remember (I could be wrong) the research indicated that there were a clear majority of Austrians voting and that the actual results also were a win for the Anschluss of Austria to Greaater Germany. I hope any Forum member can prove this right or wrong.
Regards,
Krollspell
"Wie es eigentlich gewesen ist"
Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886)
Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886)
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Doktor K,
Very interesting.
I think it is fairly clear that, even had the Nazis not rigged the April 1938 referendum, it would still have resulted in a vote for Anschluss. However, in a one party state, any dissent is damaging, so a 99% yes vote was rigged by various means. There is another thread I started on the plebiscite issue and I will bring it up so that you can view a reproduction of the ballot paper.
There is also good reason to believe that Schuschnigg's proposed referendum of March 1938, which Hitler's occupation was designed to pre-empt, calling for a German but free and independent Austria, might also have been passed. I have the form of words for that somewhere and will put them up as well.
It would thus appear that the results of a plebiscite in Austria on the Anschluss/Independence issue depended on (1) what question was asked and (2) who controlled the plebiscite process.
Cheers,
Sid.
Very interesting.
I think it is fairly clear that, even had the Nazis not rigged the April 1938 referendum, it would still have resulted in a vote for Anschluss. However, in a one party state, any dissent is damaging, so a 99% yes vote was rigged by various means. There is another thread I started on the plebiscite issue and I will bring it up so that you can view a reproduction of the ballot paper.
There is also good reason to believe that Schuschnigg's proposed referendum of March 1938, which Hitler's occupation was designed to pre-empt, calling for a German but free and independent Austria, might also have been passed. I have the form of words for that somewhere and will put them up as well.
It would thus appear that the results of a plebiscite in Austria on the Anschluss/Independence issue depended on (1) what question was asked and (2) who controlled the plebiscite process.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
-
Doktor Krollspell
- Patron
- Posts: 2474
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:57 am
- Location: Sweden
Hello Sid!
I have really enjoyed this thread about my Father's country. You have made several knowledgeable and interesting answers and replies, thank you! All this have raised more questions and thoughts for me. For starters you wrote:
My dear wife nearly went through the roof, being Dutch and all, and I wonder how far planned and prepared this "Dutch Anschluss" really were? What are your sources for this? I can see the hypothetical point of it from a Nazi ideological-racist point of view, the Dutch being considered germanic, or aryan enough to be "germans".
Another underlying theme in this thread is a general Reichs-german suspicion against Austrian higher officers and Austrian-dominated divisions. You mention a (austrian) Infanterei-Division being disbanded in 1944 and so on. Could it not have been so that the particular division was sub-standard of several reasons (not necessarily treason) , I mean, several german divisions were also disbanden or re-organized during the war for various reasons.
My final question is how many (ex-) austrian geneal officers held divisional command of "german" divisions during the war, or were they not considered good enough (or reliable enough) for this type of command?
Sid, I will definitely check out your new thread about the Austrian plebiscite!
With best regards,
Krollspell
I have really enjoyed this thread about my Father's country. You have made several knowledgeable and interesting answers and replies, thank you! All this have raised more questions and thoughts for me. For starters you wrote:
most of the Nazi occupation leadership of the Netherlands was Austrian, because Hitler and Himmler believed that they were best equipped to arrange another Anschluss with the Germanic Dutch.
My dear wife nearly went through the roof, being Dutch and all, and I wonder how far planned and prepared this "Dutch Anschluss" really were? What are your sources for this? I can see the hypothetical point of it from a Nazi ideological-racist point of view, the Dutch being considered germanic, or aryan enough to be "germans".
Another underlying theme in this thread is a general Reichs-german suspicion against Austrian higher officers and Austrian-dominated divisions. You mention a (austrian) Infanterei-Division being disbanded in 1944 and so on. Could it not have been so that the particular division was sub-standard of several reasons (not necessarily treason) , I mean, several german divisions were also disbanden or re-organized during the war for various reasons.
My final question is how many (ex-) austrian geneal officers held divisional command of "german" divisions during the war, or were they not considered good enough (or reliable enough) for this type of command?
Sid, I will definitely check out your new thread about the Austrian plebiscite!
With best regards,
Krollspell
"Wie es eigentlich gewesen ist"
Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886)
Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886)
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Dr. K,.,
I have put the words of Schussnigg's plebiscite up on the other thread.
I will give you the source for the claim that the majority of the higher Reich officials in the Netherlands in about a week. (I have just put the book away and it will take that long before I can retrieve it.)
It is very possible that the Austrian infantry division concerned was dissolved for other reasons than its Austrian roots. I believe I saw it mentioned in "Hitler's Legions" by Mitcham, and I believe he described it as being disbanded for being "unreliable" without going into further details.
Unfortunately it is much easier to check a dozen Austrian divisions for the German/Austrian origin of their commanders than to check the same for several hundred German-raised divisions. I therefore cannot answer as to whether Austrians held their fair share of command posts in the German Army as a whole.
However, as Austrians made up about 8.5% of the Reich's population after Anschluss, one would expect that amongst the forty or so commanders appointed during the war to command the Austrian-raised divisions I have checked, about three would have been Austrian. Given the very definite equal division of appointments adopted immediately after the Anschluss, it certainly looks plausible that a policy change during the first year of the war not only did away with equal German/Austrian division of command but went further and perhaps deliberately kept Austrian generals from commanding front line Austrian divisions at all. (I should point out here that it would only take 3rd Mountain Division - which I haven't been able to check - to have had three Austrian commanders appointed after the outbreak of war to upset this theory).
I wouldn't like to comment definitively on the subject of Austrian loyalty and perceived loyalty to the Reich, but I think there are enough small indications to lead us to question whether Austria was really as seemlessly, unanimously and devotedly absorbed into the Reich as the original Alt Reich.
Cheers,
Sid.
I have put the words of Schussnigg's plebiscite up on the other thread.
I will give you the source for the claim that the majority of the higher Reich officials in the Netherlands in about a week. (I have just put the book away and it will take that long before I can retrieve it.)
It is very possible that the Austrian infantry division concerned was dissolved for other reasons than its Austrian roots. I believe I saw it mentioned in "Hitler's Legions" by Mitcham, and I believe he described it as being disbanded for being "unreliable" without going into further details.
Unfortunately it is much easier to check a dozen Austrian divisions for the German/Austrian origin of their commanders than to check the same for several hundred German-raised divisions. I therefore cannot answer as to whether Austrians held their fair share of command posts in the German Army as a whole.
However, as Austrians made up about 8.5% of the Reich's population after Anschluss, one would expect that amongst the forty or so commanders appointed during the war to command the Austrian-raised divisions I have checked, about three would have been Austrian. Given the very definite equal division of appointments adopted immediately after the Anschluss, it certainly looks plausible that a policy change during the first year of the war not only did away with equal German/Austrian division of command but went further and perhaps deliberately kept Austrian generals from commanding front line Austrian divisions at all. (I should point out here that it would only take 3rd Mountain Division - which I haven't been able to check - to have had three Austrian commanders appointed after the outbreak of war to upset this theory).
I wouldn't like to comment definitively on the subject of Austrian loyalty and perceived loyalty to the Reich, but I think there are enough small indications to lead us to question whether Austria was really as seemlessly, unanimously and devotedly absorbed into the Reich as the original Alt Reich.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Dr. K.,
The book concerned is "Hitler's War Aims, Volume II" by Norman Rich (Andre Deutsch, London, 1974). Chapter 6 (pp.141-162) is devoted to German administration of the Netherlands.
Hitler's representative in the Netherlands was Arthur Seyss-Inquart. He had been the Austrian Nazi who Hitler demanded that Schussnigg take into his cabinet in early 1938. On Schussnigg's resignation Seyss-Inquart took over the Austrian givernment and it was he who issued a law "On the Reunion of Austria with the German Reich" on 13 March 1938.
On p.148 it states that Fritz Schmidt, the generalkommissar for special tasks was "the only non-Austrian among the top civilian officials in the Netherlands". Austrians specifically mentioned include Dr. Friedrich Wimmer (head of the department of administration and justice), Hans Albin Rauter (generalkommissar for security) and Dr. Hans Fischboeck (generalkommissar for economics and finance).
Cheers,
Sid.
The book concerned is "Hitler's War Aims, Volume II" by Norman Rich (Andre Deutsch, London, 1974). Chapter 6 (pp.141-162) is devoted to German administration of the Netherlands.
Hitler's representative in the Netherlands was Arthur Seyss-Inquart. He had been the Austrian Nazi who Hitler demanded that Schussnigg take into his cabinet in early 1938. On Schussnigg's resignation Seyss-Inquart took over the Austrian givernment and it was he who issued a law "On the Reunion of Austria with the German Reich" on 13 March 1938.
On p.148 it states that Fritz Schmidt, the generalkommissar for special tasks was "the only non-Austrian among the top civilian officials in the Netherlands". Austrians specifically mentioned include Dr. Friedrich Wimmer (head of the department of administration and justice), Hans Albin Rauter (generalkommissar for security) and Dr. Hans Fischboeck (generalkommissar for economics and finance).
Cheers,
Sid.
To answer the question: To my knowledge there is no general history of Austria (Ostmark) during World War II 1938-1945, at least I haven't heard of such a book yet. However, there seems to be a small armada of books about the history of Austria in the last war year of 1945. Here are a few interesting books that I have picked from the catalogue:
* Rauchensteiner, Manfried: "Der Krieg in Österreich 1945", Wien, Österr. Bundesverl., 1984, 540 S.
* Fetz, Franz J.: "Der Luftkrieg über Österreich im Zweiten Weltkrieg", Innsbruck, 1985
* Baumgartner, Gerald: "Partisanischer Widerstand in Österreich im 2. Weltkrieg", Salzburg, 1988
* Ruprecht, Karin: "Die Widerstandsjahre 1938-1945 in Österreich: Von den ersten unorganisierten Widerstandsgruppen zum zentral gelenkten Widerstand durch die "05"", Wien, 1990
* Egger, Hans: "Der Krieg 1939-1945 im Osten Österreichs und seine Vorgeschichte: Politischer Rahmen, Strategie, Taktik und die Menschen dieser Zeit", Wien, 2002
et cetera.
Especially Manfred Rauchensteiner's book is worth reading. It depicts the last months of war in Austria (January - May 1945) and contains detailed infos about the operations of Soviet, United States, British, French and even Yugoslav armies.
* Rauchensteiner, Manfried: "Der Krieg in Österreich 1945", Wien, Österr. Bundesverl., 1984, 540 S.
* Fetz, Franz J.: "Der Luftkrieg über Österreich im Zweiten Weltkrieg", Innsbruck, 1985
* Baumgartner, Gerald: "Partisanischer Widerstand in Österreich im 2. Weltkrieg", Salzburg, 1988
* Ruprecht, Karin: "Die Widerstandsjahre 1938-1945 in Österreich: Von den ersten unorganisierten Widerstandsgruppen zum zentral gelenkten Widerstand durch die "05"", Wien, 1990
* Egger, Hans: "Der Krieg 1939-1945 im Osten Österreichs und seine Vorgeschichte: Politischer Rahmen, Strategie, Taktik und die Menschen dieser Zeit", Wien, 2002
et cetera.
Especially Manfred Rauchensteiner's book is worth reading. It depicts the last months of war in Austria (January - May 1945) and contains detailed infos about the operations of Soviet, United States, British, French and even Yugoslav armies.
US PGA Commentator - "One of the reasons Arnie (Arnold Palmer) is playing so well is that, before each tee shot, his wife takes out his balls and kisses them .... Oh my god!!!!! What have I just said?!!!"
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am