Can anyone advise me of any books on Austria in WWII?
I am looking for anything that, in particular, puts Austria's military contribution in perspective and covers both any Austrian reluctance to support the Reich in WWII and German measures to ensure Austrian conformity.
It is clear that by and large Austria was a great asset to the Alt Reich, but it also seems on a number of measures not to have performed to quite the levels of the Alt Reich. I am trying to discover where the differences lie.
Cheers,
Sid.
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
-
derGespenst
- Associate
- Posts: 776
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 5:12 am
- Location: New York City
-
J.P. Slovjanski
- Supporter
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:51 am
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi derGespenst,
There are a number of indicators.
Firstly, the Nazis found it necessary to rig the Anschluss plebiscite. (There is a thread on Feldgrau on this subject.)
Immediately after the Anschluss the Germans sacked hundreds of the existing Austrian officer corps.
Initially they then made sure that Austrians and Germans shared equally the command of Austrian-raised formations. Half were commanded by Germans, half by Austrians. Where the commander was Austrian, his deputy was German, and vice versa. Whether this continued throughout the war I do not know.
2nd Panzer Division had its base moved to Vienna and was initially still manned by Germans, while some senior units of the former Austrian Army were moved to Germany. At least initially, it can be looked upon as an occupation-force-in-waiting in case the Austrian capital (which had been run by socialists in the 1920s and 1930s) proved unreliable.
Due the fact that Austria was later to introduce conscription than Germany, only one Austrian reserve division could be raised over the winter of 1939-40 and Austrian mobilisation only caught up later in the war.
Austrian fatalities (and therefore presumably total casualties) were significantly lower than those of the Old Reich. (See Overmann's book)
The 1944 July Bomb Plot coup had more success in Vienna than elsewhere.
As far as I am aware, the only Wehrmacht unit to revolt against the Reich was an Austrian Ersatzheer battalion in 1945.
There are a lot of similar indications that Austrians were not thought by the Nazis to be as reliable as the Alt Reich and that they may have been right. However, I have never seen anything substantive on this particular issue and would like to know more.
I would repeat that Austria was undoubtedly a great asset to the Reich, but there are indications that it was not perhaps as committed to the Reich as the Alt Reich was.
Cheers,
Sid.
There are a number of indicators.
Firstly, the Nazis found it necessary to rig the Anschluss plebiscite. (There is a thread on Feldgrau on this subject.)
Immediately after the Anschluss the Germans sacked hundreds of the existing Austrian officer corps.
Initially they then made sure that Austrians and Germans shared equally the command of Austrian-raised formations. Half were commanded by Germans, half by Austrians. Where the commander was Austrian, his deputy was German, and vice versa. Whether this continued throughout the war I do not know.
2nd Panzer Division had its base moved to Vienna and was initially still manned by Germans, while some senior units of the former Austrian Army were moved to Germany. At least initially, it can be looked upon as an occupation-force-in-waiting in case the Austrian capital (which had been run by socialists in the 1920s and 1930s) proved unreliable.
Due the fact that Austria was later to introduce conscription than Germany, only one Austrian reserve division could be raised over the winter of 1939-40 and Austrian mobilisation only caught up later in the war.
Austrian fatalities (and therefore presumably total casualties) were significantly lower than those of the Old Reich. (See Overmann's book)
The 1944 July Bomb Plot coup had more success in Vienna than elsewhere.
As far as I am aware, the only Wehrmacht unit to revolt against the Reich was an Austrian Ersatzheer battalion in 1945.
There are a lot of similar indications that Austrians were not thought by the Nazis to be as reliable as the Alt Reich and that they may have been right. However, I have never seen anything substantive on this particular issue and would like to know more.
I would repeat that Austria was undoubtedly a great asset to the Reich, but there are indications that it was not perhaps as committed to the Reich as the Alt Reich was.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Grunt,
I guess it was in the interests of Nazi Pan-German propaganda to make all Germans appear equally keen on the Reich, and there doesn't appear to have been any systematic study since.
The Anschluss occurred only four years after the Austrian Army and non-Nazi paramilitary groups had suppressed a Nazi uprising on 25 July 1934, with hundreds of casualties on both sides, so it should surprise nobody to learn that Nazi popularity was less than universal over 1938-45. In February 1934 the Austrian Army and non-Nazi paramilitary groups had also put down a Communist uprising in Vienna. There definitely also existed a distinctive Austrian identity that was German but not Pan-Germanic in the Nazi sense.
Mark Mazower's book on Greece in WWII also makes the point that Austrian officers in Athens were noticeably more defeatist in public than their German colleagues.
There are lots of little indications that wider Germanic loyalties to the Reich were not monolithic. For example, the Waffen-SS initially managed to raise some 600 volunteers from amongst Slovak Volksdeutsche before introducing conscription, but a similar number of unreliable Slovak Volksdeutsche had to be sent to the Reich as political prisoners. Hundreds of Hungarian Volksdeutshe also deserted a W-SS Division (Horst Wessel?) when it was moved to face the Slovak National Uprising in October 1944.
There is at least one area where Austrians seem to have been overly successful. They seem to have contributed a higher proportion of the top fighter aces than the rest of the Reich. However, given that I have only looked at the top 10, this small sample might be distorting the over all picture.
I seem to rember reading that an Austrian-raised division in Italy was disbanded as "unreliable" in 1944. It may have been the 94th Infantry. I will check.
This is clearly an area that merits some investigation, but there are lots of hints that we should not accept the "common knowledge" too uncritically.
Cheers,
Sid.
I guess it was in the interests of Nazi Pan-German propaganda to make all Germans appear equally keen on the Reich, and there doesn't appear to have been any systematic study since.
The Anschluss occurred only four years after the Austrian Army and non-Nazi paramilitary groups had suppressed a Nazi uprising on 25 July 1934, with hundreds of casualties on both sides, so it should surprise nobody to learn that Nazi popularity was less than universal over 1938-45. In February 1934 the Austrian Army and non-Nazi paramilitary groups had also put down a Communist uprising in Vienna. There definitely also existed a distinctive Austrian identity that was German but not Pan-Germanic in the Nazi sense.
Mark Mazower's book on Greece in WWII also makes the point that Austrian officers in Athens were noticeably more defeatist in public than their German colleagues.
There are lots of little indications that wider Germanic loyalties to the Reich were not monolithic. For example, the Waffen-SS initially managed to raise some 600 volunteers from amongst Slovak Volksdeutsche before introducing conscription, but a similar number of unreliable Slovak Volksdeutsche had to be sent to the Reich as political prisoners. Hundreds of Hungarian Volksdeutshe also deserted a W-SS Division (Horst Wessel?) when it was moved to face the Slovak National Uprising in October 1944.
There is at least one area where Austrians seem to have been overly successful. They seem to have contributed a higher proportion of the top fighter aces than the rest of the Reich. However, given that I have only looked at the top 10, this small sample might be distorting the over all picture.
I seem to rember reading that an Austrian-raised division in Italy was disbanded as "unreliable" in 1944. It may have been the 94th Infantry. I will check.
This is clearly an area that merits some investigation, but there are lots of hints that we should not accept the "common knowledge" too uncritically.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
-
derGespenst
- Associate
- Posts: 776
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2003 5:12 am
- Location: New York City
-
Doktor Krollspell
- Patron
- Posts: 2474
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:57 am
- Location: Sweden
Hello Sid!
Unfortunately, I don't know of any good books on this very interesting subject (myself being of Austrian descent on my father's side). I know that modern Austria have had (and still have) a very complicated (some would say schizofrenic) relation towards its own history of 1938-1945. The popular "myth" of being "the first victim of Nazi Germany" is/was very strong, at least during the eighties when there were both the Kurt Waldheim affair and the 50th anniversary of the Anschluss to take stand to.
Now to a question. You write that:
Now, I had to admit that I never read or learned about the July 20 coup's effects in Vienna and Austria. In what sources have you read about this "success"? I'm very interested...
"The difference between Austrian and German military marches is that you can dance to the Austrian ones."
Regards,
Krollspell
Unfortunately, I don't know of any good books on this very interesting subject (myself being of Austrian descent on my father's side). I know that modern Austria have had (and still have) a very complicated (some would say schizofrenic) relation towards its own history of 1938-1945. The popular "myth" of being "the first victim of Nazi Germany" is/was very strong, at least during the eighties when there were both the Kurt Waldheim affair and the 50th anniversary of the Anschluss to take stand to.
Now to a question. You write that:
As I recall, the July 20, 1944 Bomb plot was, for all practical means, most successfull in occupied Paris. The german military governor of Paris, General Karl Heinrich von Stülpnagel, ordered the arrests of over a thousand key Gestapo and SS personel in Paris and France. When news came about the failure of the coup, he was ordered back to Berlin, tried to commit suicide on the way and was severely wounded when condemned to death and executed at Plötzensee Prison.The 1944 July Bomb Plot coup had more success in Vienna than elsewhere.
Now, I had to admit that I never read or learned about the July 20 coup's effects in Vienna and Austria. In what sources have you read about this "success"? I'm very interested...
"The difference between Austrian and German military marches is that you can dance to the Austrian ones."
Regards,
Krollspell
"Wie es eigentlich gewesen ist"
Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886)
Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886)
-
Roger Griffiths
- Associate
- Posts: 925
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:24 am
- Location: UK
Hi Sid,
The Sound of Music beside, there's no substance to Austria being the first victim of the Nazis (What am I but a German Prince, The Emperor Franz Josef). I believe Adolf Hitler was an Austrian, so was Ernst Kaltenbrunner, successor to Reinhard Heydrich. In fact there was some uneasiness as so many Austrians held so many senior positions in the SS. 2nd and 9th Panzer were Austrian. 44, 45 and 46 ID's were Austrian. 137, 262, 297, 327, 331, 100Jgr, 117Jgr, 118Jgr, 187Res, 2Geb, 3Geb, 5Geb, 6Geb Divisions were Austrian. This list is not complete.
Roger
The Sound of Music beside, there's no substance to Austria being the first victim of the Nazis (What am I but a German Prince, The Emperor Franz Josef). I believe Adolf Hitler was an Austrian, so was Ernst Kaltenbrunner, successor to Reinhard Heydrich. In fact there was some uneasiness as so many Austrians held so many senior positions in the SS. 2nd and 9th Panzer were Austrian. 44, 45 and 46 ID's were Austrian. 137, 262, 297, 327, 331, 100Jgr, 117Jgr, 118Jgr, 187Res, 2Geb, 3Geb, 5Geb, 6Geb Divisions were Austrian. This list is not complete.
Roger
Hm,very interesting topic,guys.
I always thought that Austria was unanimous in its decision to unite with the Reich and I never heard of a plot or something like that in which Austrians participated.Thus,I thought that the Austrians were the most faithfull citizens of the Reich.Maybe I'm wrong...
Roger,you're completly right.There were many,many Austrians in Wehrmacht and in the Waffen-SS on high positions.Otto Skorzeny,to name one.
Regards,
Mishar
I always thought that Austria was unanimous in its decision to unite with the Reich and I never heard of a plot or something like that in which Austrians participated.Thus,I thought that the Austrians were the most faithfull citizens of the Reich.Maybe I'm wrong...
Roger,you're completly right.There were many,many Austrians in Wehrmacht and in the Waffen-SS on high positions.Otto Skorzeny,to name one.
Regards,
Mishar
I wanted to mention that but the Doktor was fasterI know that modern Austria have had (and still have) a very complicated (some would say schizofrenic) relation towards its own history of 1938-1945. The popular "myth" of being "the first victim of Nazi Germany" is/was very strong
Pedites pugnas decernent
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Doktor K,
I don't think that the proposition that Austria was Nazi Germany's first victim is entirely myth. It is based on the events of 25-28 July 1934, when the German Nazis sponsored a coup in Vienna during which the Austrian chancellor, Dolfuss, was assassinated.
If popular vote in previous elections and membership of paramilitary organisations equivalent to the SA is taken into account, at that stage Nazis were a clear minority in every province of Austria. In only two, Styria and Carinthia, were they a significant numerical threat and even there they were less numerous than their opponents. As a result the Austrian Army and pro-Government paramilitaries quickly managed to suppress the revolt.
Thus Austria was the first attempted foreign "victim" of Hitler's foreign policy adventures and it largely on the strength of its successful repulse of him in 1934 that it was able post-war to evade full complicity in the crimes of the Reich later.
In 1935 the Austrian chief-of-staff, General Jansa, met his German equivalent, Beck, and left him in no doubt that the Austrian Army would fight if attacked and this was one reason why the German General Staff was nervous about the occupation in March 1938. Indeed, the Austrians did have a fully developed mobilisation and defensive plan dubbed "DR" (Deutches Reich). It was designed to obstruct the Germans long enough to force international intervention. It was the collapse of collective international security arrangements in the mid 1930s that led to Austria not taking this option of military resistance in 1938, although the first steps of mobilisation were instituted.
Paris was not part of the Reich, so it falls outside the parameters of my point as events there had no implications for regional loyalties within the Reich. I also discounted Prague for the same reason. However, you are correct that Paris was where action by the Army against the Nazi regime was most advanced.
Any reasonable book covering the Bomb Plot beyond the confines of Berlin and Hitler's headquarters should cover events in Vienna. From memory, the action in Vienna did not spread beyond the capital because the coup in Berlin failed too quickly. If I remember rightly, the commander of Wehrkreis XVII arrested the senior Nazi party and police officials in Vienna, as per the telegrammed orders of the plotters at Ersatzheer headquarters in Berlin. All of them apparently acquiesced passively in their arrest and there seems to have been no squeak of pro-Nazi resistance. They were released within hours when it was apparent that the coup had failed.
Cheers,
Sid.
I don't think that the proposition that Austria was Nazi Germany's first victim is entirely myth. It is based on the events of 25-28 July 1934, when the German Nazis sponsored a coup in Vienna during which the Austrian chancellor, Dolfuss, was assassinated.
If popular vote in previous elections and membership of paramilitary organisations equivalent to the SA is taken into account, at that stage Nazis were a clear minority in every province of Austria. In only two, Styria and Carinthia, were they a significant numerical threat and even there they were less numerous than their opponents. As a result the Austrian Army and pro-Government paramilitaries quickly managed to suppress the revolt.
Thus Austria was the first attempted foreign "victim" of Hitler's foreign policy adventures and it largely on the strength of its successful repulse of him in 1934 that it was able post-war to evade full complicity in the crimes of the Reich later.
In 1935 the Austrian chief-of-staff, General Jansa, met his German equivalent, Beck, and left him in no doubt that the Austrian Army would fight if attacked and this was one reason why the German General Staff was nervous about the occupation in March 1938. Indeed, the Austrians did have a fully developed mobilisation and defensive plan dubbed "DR" (Deutches Reich). It was designed to obstruct the Germans long enough to force international intervention. It was the collapse of collective international security arrangements in the mid 1930s that led to Austria not taking this option of military resistance in 1938, although the first steps of mobilisation were instituted.
Paris was not part of the Reich, so it falls outside the parameters of my point as events there had no implications for regional loyalties within the Reich. I also discounted Prague for the same reason. However, you are correct that Paris was where action by the Army against the Nazi regime was most advanced.
Any reasonable book covering the Bomb Plot beyond the confines of Berlin and Hitler's headquarters should cover events in Vienna. From memory, the action in Vienna did not spread beyond the capital because the coup in Berlin failed too quickly. If I remember rightly, the commander of Wehrkreis XVII arrested the senior Nazi party and police officials in Vienna, as per the telegrammed orders of the plotters at Ersatzheer headquarters in Berlin. All of them apparently acquiesced passively in their arrest and there seems to have been no squeak of pro-Nazi resistance. They were released within hours when it was apparent that the coup had failed.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Roger,
Indeed, your list is very far from complete, both of Austrians influential in the Reich and of formations raised. For example, 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.
However, as I mentioned above, at least immediately after the Anschluss, the Germans made sure that the higher command of the active Austrian-raised divisions was equally shared between Reich Germans and native born Austrians. Furthermore, as I also mentioned above, 2nd Panzer Division was initially almost entirely German and it took a couple of years for Austrians to largely replace them.
In a Cambridge or Oxford encyclopedia of WWII I have, it claims that Austrians were never allowed to be more than 80% of any formation. However, when I wrote to the author for a source I got no reply. I am therefore doubtful of that claim at present.
It seems that the Nazis were so keen to extinguish any vestiges of Austrian national identity that from 1942 instructions were issued not even to refer to the region collectively as Ostmark, let alone Osterreich. Only the name of individual gaus were to be used.
Cheers,
Sid.
Indeed, your list is very far from complete, both of Austrians influential in the Reich and of formations raised. For example, 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.
However, as I mentioned above, at least immediately after the Anschluss, the Germans made sure that the higher command of the active Austrian-raised divisions was equally shared between Reich Germans and native born Austrians. Furthermore, as I also mentioned above, 2nd Panzer Division was initially almost entirely German and it took a couple of years for Austrians to largely replace them.
In a Cambridge or Oxford encyclopedia of WWII I have, it claims that Austrians were never allowed to be more than 80% of any formation. However, when I wrote to the author for a source I got no reply. I am therefore doubtful of that claim at present.
It seems that the Nazis were so keen to extinguish any vestiges of Austrian national identity that from 1942 instructions were issued not even to refer to the region collectively as Ostmark, let alone Osterreich. Only the name of individual gaus were to be used.
Cheers,
Sid.