Posted on 02/14/2008 6:56:16 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson
Chancellor Hitler’s meeting with Chancellor Schuschnigg of Austria Saturday now shpes up, according to the Berlin view, as a first move toward a general European settlement based on a four-power pact to include Britain, France Italy and Germany. Such a settlement has previously been blocked partly by fears of a Nazi Putsch in Austria. Germany and Austria now seem to have reached an agreement that will assure peace for a time at least.
News of this agreement has spurred the movement in Britain for a deal with the Reich and a new approach is probable. The British Cabinet is reported to be studying what colonial and other concessions could be made.
Austrian Nazis talked of a “third betrayal” by Hitler, who, they believed, agreed to denounce Nazi violence in Austria in return for a pledge from Chancellor Schuschnigg to suppress the monarchist movement.
The French were uneasy over developments in the Reich, but as yet they saw now cause for alarm. The fact that there is deep-seated opposition to Hitler was stressed.
BERLIN, Feb 13 – According to information in diplomatic quarters today, the meeting of Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg of Austria at Berchtesgaden yesterday represents merely a preliminary move in a larger peace scheme. This scheme seems to be nothing less than a new European settlement along the lines of a four-power pact between Britain, France, Italy and Germany, which was first proposed by Premier Benito Mussolini of Italy and now is advocated by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Britain and the Conservatives behind him.
This information is supported by the fact that Mussolini, as well as the British and French Governments were fully advised of the preparations for the meeting and its results. The meeting was initiated a week ago, when Franz von Papen, Reich Ambassador to Austria, already en route to Berlin after his recall, was directed by urgent telegram to see Hitler at Berchtesgaden instead. Thereafter Herr von Papen promptly returned to Vienna and he has been negotiating with the Vienna Government since with the aid and encouragement of Italy, as well as Britain.
The idea behind the meeting, as seen in diplomatic quarters here, was that if an agreement could be reached between Berlin and Vienna that would guarantee peace between them, even for the time being, and prevent any rash action that might upset the European applecart, a basis would be laid for larger and simultaneous negotiations. These are the negotiations with both Germany and Italy that are desired by those British Conservatives who disagree with Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, advocate of a more cautious approach.
Just who was the originator of the idea still is not clear, but inasmuch as Reich Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop when Ambassador to London had become perfectly conversant with the views of the British Conservatives and inasmuch as Herr von Papen was not dispatched on this special mission until Herr von Ribbentrop had been appointed Foreign Minister, a certain cooperation between Herr von Ribbentrop and the British Conservatives seems likely.
How far the plan has succeeded also is not clear. All German quarters maintain the strictest secrecy about the results of the meeting. But there is no contradiction of information from Austrian quarters that after some heated discussions an agreement was reached between Chancellors Hitler and Schuschnigg based on a reaffirmation of the Austro-German agreement of July 1936, in which Germany acknowledged “the full sovereignty of Austria” and pledged herself to abstain from any interference in Austrian domestic affairs, including the problem of the Austrian Nazis, while Austria promised to act as “a German State.”
This agreement, which has not worked well heretofore, is to be interpreted more precisely and perhaps even extended.
But the main difficulty, it appears, has been the impending trials of Austrian Nazis, in connection with whose arrests the Austrian Government is said to have seized material that pointed to assistance from across the border. Dr. Schuschnigg is even reported to have submitted a voluminous dossier about the matter to Hitler directly. At any rate, it is no secret that Germany is anxious to avoid these trials, which might prove embarrassing. The line of settlement in this matter reportedly was that the Austrian Nazis would cease agitation and join the Patriotic Front, in return for which the Austrian Government would declare an amnesty covering the Nazi offenses.
Should such an agreement be ratified by both sides, it might well serve as a basis for the larger negotiations desired by the British Conservatives. But as these negotiations are based on the idea of security in the West and of giving Germany a free hand in the East, the anxiety prevailing in both Paris and Warsaw becomes easily understandable. And this casts new light on the persistent rumors of disorders and even revolutions in Germany that have spread form these centers in the last few days.
From The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer:
After cooling their heels for two hours in a small anteroom, the two Austrians [Schuschnigg and his Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs, Guido Schmidt] were ushered into the presence of Ribbentrop, the new German Foreign Minister, and of Papen. Ribbentrop presented them with a two-page typewritten draft of an “agreement” and remarked that they were Hitler’s final demands and that the Fuehrer would not permit discussion of them. They must be signed forthwith. Schuschnigg says he felt relieved to have at least something definite from Hitler. But as he perused the document his relief evaporated. For here was a German ultimatum calling on him, in effect, to turn the Austrian government over to the Nazis within one week.
The ban against the Austrian Nazi Party was to be lifted, all Nazis in jail were to be amnestied and the pro-Nazi Viennese lawyer Dr. Seyss-Inquart was to be made Minister of the Interior, with authority over the police and security.
Or, as it came to be known, Anschluss: The rape of Austria. Schuschnigg signed.
Good luck with that, British Conservatives.
I think my spell check is broken. It doesn't recognize Schuschnigg as a real word.
Dang. I forgot the (Real time + 70 years) addendum on the thread title. Can a moderator help with that?
"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
Can we still say that?
Well, Austria was divided on the subject. The Austrian leader Dolfuss had opposed the Nazis. As a result, Austrian Nazis assassinated Dolfuss in 1934. This made the eventual Anschluss a lot easier.
This is a fascinating offering. There are all these references to “negotiations” and “hopes” and so on ... and yet there is no serious discussion of why “negotiations” are needed at all.
What struck me in comparing that article to this one, is the similarity in how the Europeans of 1938 so regularly focused on the "trees," and thereby missed the forest. And in the case of Iran, the same dynamic is clearly at work.
I just heard a news blurb stating that Hezbollah is threatening all-out war against Israel for blowing up their leader. Hezbollah looks to me like the same froth on the pot that the Austrian Nazis were in 1938.
Negotiations are the stuff of diplomacy. After negotiations have run their course the next step is use of force. I guess the Brits and French just didn't want to think about that at this point. That seems to be about the extent of Hitler's "genius." He recognized and exploited the fact that a civilized people will hesitate before embarking on a war.
True.
One of the reasons I'm so pleased you're doing this, is that there has always been a serious "what if" aspect to considering Hitler's rise to power. "What if" the British, or French, or we, had acted sometime in 1935-38? What would have happened differently?
I think right now we're actually playing out the other side of a similar "what if," with respect to Islamofascism.
Rather than Al Gore playing Chamberlain, who would no doubt have been "negotiating," we have George W. Bush playing the role of Churchill -- recognizing early, and acting on, the danger posed by the bad guys.
Whether it plays out to any definitive conclusion of course remains to be seen. But the similarity in the situations (the nature of the threats, and the mindsets of the players) is really interesting to behold.
Look forward to many such headlines with Barack Hussein Obama as President.
True enough -- and they're often good and necessary. What I was getting at, though, is that the articles you've posted here never seem to delve into the causes of the conflicts that the negotiations were meant to address. What was it about Nazi Germany that was driving these conflicts? What were their goals; how were they behaving?
The picture I get from this article (and from the history of the times) is of Chamberlain and Daladier refusing to look into the nature of the conflict. The fundamentally misunderstood what Germany was about, and to them, "negotiation" offered a safe way around the conflict.
We know, in retrospect, that Hitler's (and Germany's) ambitions were not amenable to "negotiation." They were implacably set on dominating Europe. To them, "negotiation" was an easy way to keep Britain and France at bay while they absorbed the nations around them.
Churchill recognized the nature of the German threat -- and spent years in the political wilderness for his willingness to say it in public. He was right -- and it's plausible to argue dismissing Churchill and ignoring the nature of the threat, Chamberlain guaranteed that the only way to deal with Hitler would be an immense war.
It's an interesting and timely lesson for us.
I think part of the answer is that your questions use the wrong tense. Rather than "their" and "they" it should be "his" and him." From my reading so far it appears that Hitler had so far cemented his control over Germany by 1938 that he was Germany. We saw last week how he managed (with the help of Goering and Himmler) to banish the last of the top military men who were not down with his plan to use force to dominate Europe. There were elements in the army who conspired in a small way to overthrow Hitler before he launched a total war that would be the end of Germany, but they didn't get much encouragement from Britain or France.
I don't think the Iranian president has yet gotten that amount of control. I wish the Bush administration would expend a little more effort at stirring up a regime change in that country. Maybe they are. I wouldn't expect weekly updates at White House pressers. Michael Ledeen has some provocative ideas on that subject.
I never figured out how to post a link. I guess I will have to visit the html sandbox and give myself a tutorial. In the meantime I will ping you past postings. There aren't too many. I just recently started doing this.
This is the 2/14/38 offering.
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.