Talk:Anschluss

Ambiguity about March 13 referendum

I think that the current article is far too ambiguous about what happened to the referendum Kurt Schuschnigg planned for March 13.

Under "Schuschnigg announces a referendum," the article says "In the face of [Hitler's] threat, Schuschnigg informed Seyss-Inquart that the plebiscite would be cancelled."

But was the plebiscite ACTUALLY cancelled, or was this a lie to Seyss-Inquart to buy some time? As far as I can tell, the article does not make any unambiguous statements about whether or not the plebiscite actually went ahead or was cancelled for real.

What makes the matter even more confusing is a line under "Referendum" (which is referring to the April 10 Nazi referendum): "In some remote areas of Austria, people voted to preserve the independence of Austria on 13 March (in Schuschnigg's planned but cancelled referendum) despite the Wehrmacht's presence. For instance, in the village of Innervillgraten, a majority of 95% voted for Austria's independence."

If the referendum "was cancelled", as the text states, then how could 95% of Innervillgraten's residents vote for independence? It's a contradiction of terms: if the referendum was cancelled, then people couldn't have voted. Or if people voted, then there WAS a referendum.

The only explanation I can imagine is that the act of voting was not cancelled, and went ahead with people gathering at polling locations and casting votes, but the results of the plebiscite were never actually implemented. But if that is what happened, than I don't think that can be reasonably called a "cancellation."

The bottom line is, some parts of the article should be rewritten to explicitly, unambiguously and non-self-contradictingly state what exactly happened or did not happen on March 13 with Schuschnigg's referendum. Arrowgrab (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

The plebiscit was cancelled. Hitler's reaction to the announcement was the premature invasion of Wehrmacht and police troops, he could not risk a vote: There was agreement from the Social Democrats for support, leaflets from various groups were printed in a hurry - copies are in the Austrian State Archives and other archives. With the expected 70% approval for an independent Austria, Hitler would not have been able to announce a voluntary "Anschluss". But yes - voting was held in some remote villages in the mountains, as the news of the German invasion was not communicated.

As with the seizure of power in Germany in 1933, "auxiliary (SA-)policemen" arrested all persons known as opponents of the Nazis from 11/12 March onwards on the basis of prepared lists. The propaganda pamphlets and announcements of the plebiscit were immediately collected and destroyed. The "vote" carried out by Hitler with full propaganda a few weeks later in April was not free. Anyone who did not vote openly for Germany, but went into the voting booth, was already suspicious - personal data were known, the "assessors" were party functionaries.--Aschland (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

20% only in support claim

Currently the article states:

In case of a fair referendum, the Anschluss would have been supported only by 20% of the Austrian population.

The two sources for the claim are Peter Knaur (1951), The International Relations of Austria and the Anschluss 1931–1938 on page 370 and Joachim von Halas (1938). Adolf Hitler from speeches 1933-1938, Terramare Office. page 23.

The first source is not available to view on Google books and I can’t seem to get a view of it online anywhere. Who added that source and what does it say on page 320? The second source says nothing at all about only 20% allegedly supporting the Anschluss. That book is available on the Internet Archive and on page 23 it is about a speech given by Adolf Hitler and his claims about reaching out to the Chancellor of Austria Kurt Schuschnigg.

QueenCoatsie (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Removing sources because you cannot access them is against the Wikipedia guidelines, see WP:PAYWALL: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Either way, I found a relevant passage on said page 370 and will re-add it as an in-text attribution. Brat Forelli🦊 05:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

But Knaur refers to Schuschnigg's announcement of a plebiscite on 9 March 1938. On the plebiscite of 10 April Knauer comments: "There was never a Nazi majority in Austria. The Nazis were supported by anti-clericals and anti-semites, but Hitler’s plebiscite which he held in the Spring of 1938 was false." (p. 392) One could argue, however, that a thesis from 1951 based mainly upon journalistic sources is not a reliable source for that claim given the wealth of literature published during the last 50 years. For example, the catholic clergy (Kardinal Innitzer) supported the Anschluss. Be that as it may, I move Knaur's assessment to the chapter which deals with the referendum to which Knaur refers. Assayer (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Mentioning Innitzer's support seems bizarre - does it really point out to widespread support for Anschluss? This very article page states that Innitzer was despised by Austrian workers (Bukey 2000), and that he was intimidated into supporting the Anschluss. Brat Forelli🦊 19:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Austria was predominantly Catholic and in Facist Austria the clergy had a say. Whether Innitzer was despised by Austrian workers or not, has no impact upon the support for the "Anschluss". On the Social Democratic side there was Karl Renner supporting the "Anschluss". The Persecution and Murder of the European Jews by Nazi Germany, 1933–1945, vol. 2, p. 37 states: "Theodor Innitzer had acclaimed the bloodless Anschluss immediately after the entry of the German troops and appealed to the faithful for obedience to the authorities. Soon afterwards, the Catholic bishops published a solemn declaration in which they joyously ' recognized the merits of National Socialism and called for a 'Yes' vote in the popular referendum." No one has claimed that Innitzer had to be "intimidated" to sign the support for the "Anschluss" (with "Hail Hitler", by the way). It seems that you have inserted that claim into the article[1] based on an obscure source written by a Walter Krieger, Director of the Austrian "Pastoralinstitut". But even Krieger does not claim that, but rather that Innitzer had been tricked and that he deluded himself about Hitler. On pp. 7-8 Krieger talks about the attack of members of the HJ on Innitzer's Episcopal residence on 8 October 1938. It's hard to conceive this as an attack to intimidate Innitzer into supporting the "Anschluss" somewhat six months earlier, isn't it? By the way, your second claim is'nt supported by the source you provided (Phayer), either. On p. 22 Phayer deals with Polish Church Leaders Protest to Pope Pius XII in 1940. On ibid., p. 2 Phayer talks about the addresses in L’Osservatore Romano which were about the "contradiction between Catholicism and racism", the Catholic opposition to racism and condemning "Nazi racist ideas about the purity of blood and forbidding Catholics to teach such notions". Neither calls Phayer these addresses a condemnation of Nazism as such, nor does he claim that the pope "forbade Catholics from following their ideas or supporting Anschluss". That's simply not supported by the source. Assayer (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Classifying the Ständestaat as fascist by itself is debatable; there is significant scholarly discussion on this point. Similarly, a country being predominantly of a certain religion does not imply that its population blindly follows religious leaders or that the leaders automatically represent the views of the people. For example, Russia was predominantly Orthodox in 1917, yet this did not prevent the Bolsheviks from seizing power.

Regarding Cardinal Innitzer’s intimidation, an article in The Spectator from 14 October 1938 notes:

"In March he was at the head of the Austrian bishops in urging Catholics to vote for the Anschluss. His action was repudiated by the Vatican, and later the negotiations between the Austrian Church and the Reich were broken off by Cardinal Innitzer himself. His Nazi sympathies were sometimes attributed to his being a Sudeten German by origin; but last Friday, at a time when the Cardinal might have been expected to rejoice at the return of his homeland to the Reich, he preached a sermon to the Catholic Youth in Vienna declaring that during the last month they had 'lost nearly everything' to the Nazis, and excusing the attitude adopted by the Austrian Bishops by the heavy responsibility they have had to carry. Six months of Nazi rule seems to have disillusioned the Cardinal, no less than thousands of others in Vienna. There are some who will find it appropriate that the Nazis in Catholic Vienna should celebrate the Anschluss of Bohemia with the Reich by attacking their Cardinal, breaking up his Palace, destroying the ancient library of the Austrian bishops, and breaking both the legs of an aged and defenceless priest. The police made no attempt to prevent this outrage."

Historian John W. Boyer, in "Austria 1867–1955" (pp. 815–16), adds:

"The Anschluss brought the Catholic Church into a profound dilemma. The new regime immediately seized the initiative, and given the dynamic strength that the occupiers displayed, it would have required men with nerves (and backbones) of steel to resist, and the Austrian bishops were no such leaders. Several of the bishops were physically intimidated—Ferdinand Pawlikowski of Seckau was arrested for 24 hours, and Sigismund Waitz of Salzburg found his offices surrounded by rowdy crowds of screaming Nazi agitators. The episcopate was divided, with Cardinal Innitzer especially seeking some form of accommodation, manifesting behavior such that Bishop Johannes Gföllner of Linz later thought that the Vatican should have demanded Innitzer’s resignation. When Hitler triumphantly entered Vienna on March 14, Innitzer was persuaded to order the ringing of the bells of the Catholic churches in the city, including the Pummerin at the Stephansdom. He had already offered on March 13 a public prayer of thanks that the 'revolution' had occurred without bloodshed, and then sent a congratulatory telegram greeting Hitler in Linz. Under circumstances that have never been clarified (most likely at the urging of Franz von Papen), Innitzer agreed to officially greet Hitler at the Hotel Imperial on the late morning of March 15, seeking to gain reassurance that the Church would be able to protect its basic institutional prerogatives (such as education of the youth) in return for its loyal recognition of the factual legitimacy of the new regime. Hitler masterfully deluded Innitzer into imagining that he would sanction a deal for the Church, a state of affairs Hitler had no intention of honoring. In the aftermath of this public display of comity, Klaus Selzner, an aide to the new Gauleiter Josef Bürckel, presented Innitzer on March 16 with a draft of what would become a general ceremonial endorsement of the new regime. The bishops tried to soften the language, but to no avail, and Bürckel bullied them into issuing a revised version on March 18 that acknowledged the legitimacy of the Anschluss and the broader Nazi Reich, blessed the work of the new occupiers as necessary to defend against godless Bolshevism, and urged Catholics to render public support to the new regime. This declaration was published on March 21, 1938, after the bishops persuaded Bürckel to concede some minor gestures of toleration, most of which he soon repudiated. Innitzer made the situation worse by appending the salutation 'Heil Hitler' to his letter of transmittal. The declaration was read in the churches of Austria on March 27, to the shock of many faithful Catholics. It ended up on posters all over the nation on the eve of the plebiscite in favor of the Anschluss engineered by the Nazis for April 10."

Taken together, these primary and secondary sources document not only the process of intimidation faced by Innitzer and the Austrian clergy before and during the Anschluss, but also provide context for why Innitzer shifted from being a staunch ally of the Ständestaat to appearing to support the Anschluss almost immediately—a nuance often overlooked in discussions of the period.

Even disregarding political intimidation, the attacks against Innitzer and his behavior during the Anschluss show that his actions were far from straightforward. While he formally recognized the Anschluss, he quickly turned against Nazi policies, reflecting a mixture of coercion, pragmatism, and self-preservation rather than genuine ideological support.

It is clear that Innitzer’s apparent support for the Anschluss was not voluntary. To my knowledge, no reputable historian has argued otherwise. His actions can only reasonably be classified, at best, as the result of intimidation and, at worst, outright coercion. Fuzera (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Liberation of Vienna by Red Army

As Jon698 starts edit warring, (2 reversions, one wihtin a minute) - without replying in sustance to anything I wrote and giving as comment only "What you wrote makes no sense"

see this 16:22, 5 October 2025 Jon698 talk contribs 118,365 bytes −29 Undid revision 1315242561 by FrankBierFarmer (talk) What you wrote makes no sense undothank Tags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit App undo curprev

16:21, 5 October 2025 FrankBierFarmer talk contribs 118,394 bytes +29 reververting improvements without comments in this edit summary is violating WP principles, Please start discussion first: Undid android app based revision undo Tags: Undo Reverted

It needs a refutation of my initial comment:

"liberated" is the correct Austrian historic expression, as the German-NAZI occuption was seen by the great majority as unjust, at least at that time at the end of the lost WWII

I will add TO this ACTUAL reference from our official AUSTRIAN STATE NEWS Agency:

https://wien.orf.at/stories/3300610/ THE TOP SUMMARY WRITES: " 80 Jahre Befreiung und Kriegsende in Wien

           Vor 80 Jahren, am 13. April 1945, ist die Schlacht um Wien zu Ende gegangen. In anderen Landesteilen konnte der Krieg erst einen Monat später beendet werden. Sowjetische Truppen befreiten die Stadt, doch die Bevölkerung litt weiterhin unter den Folgen des Krieges.  

"

So, is this wrong dear Jon698 what our state media, our popupulation, and all respected historians in the world say? .. except of course some russophobes one.

FrankBierFarmer (talk) FrankBierFarmer (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• 1. Your edits included "German speaking, over centuries Austrian," in regards to the Sudetenland. The inhabitants of the Sudetenland are never referred to as Austrians in any source or discussion.
  2. What you are trying to put into the article is clearly a part of the Austria victim theory. Jon698 (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  Ad 1,

  Look at the map of the area in 1918 in the same article, just few lines above.

  They were "Austrians" - which was the short form of identifying ihabitants in the Austrian-Habsburg empire from Ferdinands time on so around 1550 till 1918.

  "...any source or discussion"... please learn history, learn to read maps, and look at WP articles carfully.

  And I qouted Prime minister Renner in my comment, see there . In the articles of Versailles treaty they are named as such.

  ad 2,

  2. Liberating by Red army was the topic of my thread here, this has nothing to to with Austrian vicitim theory.

  This is again an evasive answer by you.

  FrankBierFarmer (talk) FrankBierFarmer (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  The phrase is "Sudetenland Germans" not "Sudetenland Austrians". Austria was not under German occupation, that is a part of the Austria victim theory. Jon698 (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  ad your "Sudentenland Germans"

  They were living over centuries in norther Bohemia, in the mountainous border areas to the German Empire and former Saxonia.

  so all Bohemians were by defintions "Austrians", see this WP qoute:

  "

  After the death of King Louis II of Hungary and Bohemia in the 1526 Battle of Mohács, the Habsburg Archduke Ferdinand of Austria became King of Bohemia, which became a constituent state of the Habsburg monarchy.

  "

  S: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudeten_Germans#Middle_Ages_and_early_modern_period

  and "Sudentenland Germans" is a NAZI propaganda creation, see here:

  "As these terms were heavily used by the Nazi German regime to push forward the creation of a Greater Germanic Reich, many contemporary Germans avoid them in favour of the traditional names.

  "

  S: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudeten_Germans#Names

  Why do you prefer to use this NAZI propaganda term?

  and

  you state above "Austria was not under German occupation ..."

  Republican Austria was occupied, annexed by German troups on 12. March 1938 ... do you deny that what is stated in the article here?

  Thus Austria was under German occupation, annexed until the Allies marched in and NAZI Germany capitulated in May 1945. For me, as quite well educated Austrian, from what professional background you feel encouraged to change WP content on wrong premises?

  So all your remarks were refuted, even based on the facts and the content of the article itself (maps, historic dates, etc.)

  You reversions of my improvements have to be retracted, please do it yourself. KR, from Vienna, Austria

  FrankBierFarmer (talk) FrankBierFarmer (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  You are obviously trying to push a POV. Reading the name of the article you just cited to me. It is Sudeten Germans not Sudeten Austrians. If I am somehow using a Nazi propaganda term then Wikipedia and the entire historical field is doing that as well. Jon698 (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  You do not refute my arguments in substance.

  and I agree with you in one point... AND I NEVER used the term "Sudeten Austrians"... I will never use that. Please read my improvement-words carfully, which you obviously did not as you did not refute and discuss it word by word , just reverted all my improvments.

  and this map may help your understanding.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudetenland#/media/File:Germans_in_western_Austro-Hungaria.gif

  Please explain what you see here?

  So, it is clear that you did not read my improvments on the "Bohemian Germans" word by word. Shall I repeat it here?

  And our second issue, as it is now clear the Red Army liberated Vienna, with heavy fighting and many casualities, as the first allies troups arriving there 1945. You did not refute that.

  So it is "liberation",and not "occupation" as your individual POV seems to be. Please study my reference to ORF.at in the talk, on that matter above.

  kr, FrankBierFarmer (talk) FrankBierFarmer (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

...Sudetenland, which had a predominantly German speaking, over centuries Austrian, population....

Dear @Jon698, as you did not study my improvements word by word, to refute them, I created this additional topic: containing the half sentence contested by you, to ease the WP discussion also for others.

In addition to our exchange above, on the "German Bohemians", please see this map, how Republican Austria in 1918-1919, officially, and for sure representing the overwhelming majority of itś German speaking population, saw the Austrian state after the collaps of the Habsburg regime:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss_%C3%96sterreichs#/media/Datei:Deutsch%C3%B6sterreich1.png

Thus the German speaking peoples in the northern rim of Bohemia, have been "Austrians" ( inhabitants of Austrian-Habsburg empire) over centuries. And did feel so. Therefore I made the subtle improvement, my small addition - see title of this thread.

What does, in content, speak against this improvement - replacing "Ethnic Germans" with "German speaking" ? Please examplify! FrankBierFarmer (talk) FrankBierFarmer (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)