Posted on 02/16/2008 8:13:04 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson
British Minimize Vienna Surrender; Relieved That Clash Was Avoided
Smoother Path Seen for ‘Deal’ With Germany If Hitler Is Reasonable – Public Realizes Importance Despite Official Complacence
By FERDINAND KUHN Jr.
Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.
LONDON, Feb. 15 – Faced with what it knows to be the surrender of Austria to the might of Nazi Germany, the British Government publicly stuck its head deep into the sand today.
“Oh, it is nothing very serious,” was the official attitude, although all London realized that the Trojan horse of Nazism had been pushed at last into the heart of Vienna.
As a matter of fact, today’s developments there fit in nicely with the British policy of the moment. Privately British Government quarters are infinitely relieved that there has been a “peaceful” capitulation to Chancellor Hitler and not an armed insurrection in Vienna or invasion from the outside.
The British Government does not care whether the Austrian Government imports Nazi methods into Vienna; London is pledged only to take an “interest” in the maintenance of Austrian independence and is satisfied if a semblance of that independence can be preserved.
If Chancellor Schuschnigg had turned to London in his extremity of the last few days he would have received no help whatever. He would have been advised, in fact, to make his settlement with the Nazis and do it quickly.
For the British are trying to discover at the moment whether they can make “deals” with both Germany and Italy. It would have been awkward, to say the least, if Austro-German bloodshed had interrupted the present Anglo-German flirtation, or if the threat of bloodshed in Austria had overhung Anglo-German negotiations.
Now, if Hitler is only moderately “reasonable” in his Reichstag speech Sunday and does not talk too truculently against other powers, the path toward and Anglo-German “deal” on colonies and other matters will become smoother.
If Hitler on Sunday “guarantees the security of Austria,” the friends of Anglo-German reconciliation here will acclaim it as proof of his moderation and good sense, although he will be pledging his protection only for a tiny country in which he will pull all the strings.
One British Government spokesman said today:
“We must not jump to conclusions. Schuschnigg will always be able to overrule his Nazi Ministers. Austria will be independent just as before.”
There was a familiar ring about such comments. Correspondents working in London have become accustomed to them and indeed expect to hear them whenever totalitarianism wins a victory in any part of the world.
When the Italians marched into Ethiopia the British public was assured that the rainy season would soon put an end to the invasion.
When Japanese shots rang out near Peiping last Summer, the affair was “only a local incident” and would be patched up speedily. When Germany, Italy and Japan signed the anti-Comintern pact it was represented here as “nothing but a façade” without the slightest practical importance.
Such is the unvarying British technique nowadays whenever something disagreeable happens abroad. It has been followed today, although in the near future Feb. 15 may be regarded as the date when one of Hitler’s dreams of “Mein Kampf” was fulfilled at last.
Not many in this country were really deceived by the official complacency over Austria today, although some of the newspapers are already trying to minimize what has occurred.
“The Rome-Berlin axis has already reduced the independence of Austria to a shadow,” was the comment in a speech by Professor G. P. Gooch, joint editor of British Documents on the Origins of the War and probably the greatest living historian of pre-war diplomacy. “Time will show whether today’s events in Vienna are the thin edge of the wedge or the whole wedge.
“The news seems to confirm the judgment that the magnetic power of the Rome-Berlin axis increases day by day and that the little States of Central Europe are being pulled irresistibly by it.”
These articles are great looking back and knowing what we know now.
Thanks. I added you to the ping list.
If anyone else wants on or off the Real Time + 70 Years ping list let me know.
The Austrians were NOT Hitler's first victim. They welcomed him with open arms.
Here is some background on that (also from Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.)
Seyss-Inquart, the first of the quislings, was a pleasant-mannered, intelligent young Viennese lawyer who since 1918 had been possessed with a burning desire to see Austria joined with Germany. This was a popular notion in the first years after the war. Indeed, on November 12, 1918, the day after the armistice, the Provisional National Assembly in Vienna, which had just overthrown the Hapsburg monarchy and proclaimed the Austrian Republic, had tried to effect an Anschluss by affirming that “German Austria is a component part of the German Republic.” The victorious Allies had not allowed it and by the time Hitler came to power in 1933 there was no doubt that the majority of Austrians were against their little country’s joining with Nazi Germany.
Shirer does not elaborate on why there was "no doubt." Maybe there was polling data.
This is the one act of “aggression” by Hitler I struggle with. Austria was one of the many states that arose from the destruction of the Hapsburg Empire. While the Empire was imperfectly carved up on ethnic lines, they pretty much got it right with Austria; it was about as purely German as you could get. Not completely, but close. The Austrian lands had always had close ties with south German states such as Bavaria, and Hapsburg and Wittelsbach intermarriage was common.
So, an Anschluss between the two states would seem natural in combinining all ethnic Germans into one state. The French, British and Italians knew this at the end of WW1, and as part of the policy of castrating Germany, the Versailles Treaty prohibited an Anschluss. But when Hitler did annex Austria, it was a very popular move both in Austria & Germany.
So, while the annexation was performed in Hitler’s typically brutal and thug-like manner, it was not an entirely illogical evolution. I don’t have the same concerns with the Sudeten Germans; Hitler was never about merely re-combining Sudeten Germans into the Reich; his goal was the destruction of the Czech State and subjugation of her citizens. Same for Danzig & Poland.
Today, such a union is no longer an issue as Europe wallows in it’s one world socialism before it goes down to Islamofascism.
Please add me. How can I see the prior articles?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
USA/Canada/Mexico: Anschluss? Nein, danke!
--Hitler was no more "Catholic" than was Stalin--
I have struggled with that question. I think you are correct. I guess I will change my descriptions going forward.
“—Hitler was no more “Catholic” than was Stalin—”
Both Stalin and Hitler were said to have one Jewish grandparent.
Both Stalin and Hitler were said to have considered becoming priests in their youths.
As a Communist, Stalin was officially atheist.
Hitler was officially Catholic, and was treated as such by Church, in the same vein as Italy’s dictator Mussolini and Spain’s Franco — especially in the beginning.
By the time of the war, the Church had big problems with Hitler, but still on his death (by suicide!) gave him a requium mass.
I think Homer is right. It´s real time (1938) + 70 years. We should not confuse “real time” with “present time”.
Perhaps you can explain the difference between real time and present time.
Present time is always “at the moment”. Real time depends on what we speak of. When I refer to the Anschluss of 1938, that year is real time. When I refer to the Kosovo “independance”, then Feb 2007 is “real time”. At least that´s my understanding. Dictionaries are not clear about that. They define real time as a word describing computer features or as actual time of occurrence: the actual time during which something happens.
I think we both agree that the word real-time was not appropriate for what the poster actually wanted to express.
Minor cultural difference -- IMO, Austrian desserts are way better than anything I ever had in Germany.
the Austrian Germans were deprived of self-determination by the Allied Powers.
It is certainly interesting how the world has suffered through the unintended consequences of the War to End All Wars. From the matters referenced in this article/posts to Kosovo to Iraq, the hand of men we revere as great statesmen today (such as Churchill) allowed and crafted treaties and settlements that now can be seen as utter foolishness in the denial of cultural and geographic realities.
The hubris of man really knows no bounds.
The poster wanted to express the idea that these articles are being posted in the same sequence and with the same elapsed time periods as the originals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.