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)

Austrian support for Anschluss

This article suggests that support for Anschuluss amongst Austrians was low, while the Austria victim theory article says that support was high. Is there a modern consensus? 2600:6C50:1900:E9:3DE3:94A0:53D2:B910 (talk) 05:45, 13 March 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)