From the New York Times, March 14, 1938:
While researching the annexation of Austria by Germany, I came across this speech given by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to the Parliament the day after it happened.
In brief, Chamberlain says that on February 12, 1938, the Austrian and German Chancellors met and agreed on an extension of the framework set up by an earlier treaty. That treaty “provided, among other things, for the recognition of the independence of Austria by Germany and the recognition by Austria of the fact that she was a German State.”
The following week, Austrian Chancellor Schuschnigg “decided that the best way to put an end to the uncertainties of the internal situation in his country was to hold a plebiscite under which the people could decide the future of their country.”
On March 11, two Austrian Nazi members of the Austrian Parliament “presented an ultimatum to the Chancellor. They demanded the abandonment of the plebiscite and threatened that if this was refused, the Nazis would abstain from voting and could not be restrained from causing serious disturbances during the poll.”
“Later that day, feeling himself to be under threat of civil war and a possible military invasion, the Chancellor gave way to the two Ministers and agreed to cancel the plebiscite on condition that the tranquillity of the country was not disturbed by the Nazis.”
That’s how it was done. It’s probably why the far right and its leadership is getting away with so much in the US now.
Text of original speech:
FOREIGN AFFAIRS (AUSTRIA).
HC Deb 14 March 1938 vol 333 cc45-169
3.37 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain) The main sequence of events of the last few days will be familiar to hon. Members, but no doubt the House will desire that I should make a statement on the subject. The result of the meeting at Berchtesgaden on 12th February between the German and Austrian Chancellors was stated by the former to be an extension of the framework of the July, 1936, Agreement. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will recollect that that Agreement provided, among other things, for the recognition of the independence of Austria by Germany and the recognition by Austria of the fact that she was a German State. Therefore, whatever the results of the Berchtesgaden meeting were, it is clear that the agreement reached was on the basis of the independence of Austria.
On Wednesday of last week Herr von Schuschnigg decided that the best way to put an end to the uncertainties of the internal situation in his country was to hold a plebiscite under which the people could decide the future of their country. Provision for that plebiscite is made in the Austrian Constitution of 1934. This decision on the part of the Austrian Chancellor was unwelcome to the German Government, as it was also unwelcome to the Austrian National Socialists themselves. Matters appear to have come to a head on the morning of 11th March when Herr von Seyss-Inquart, who had been appointed Minister of the Interior as a result of the Berchtesgaden meeting, together with his colleague Dr. Glaise-Horstenau presented an ultimatum to the Chancellor. They demanded the abandonment of the plebiscite and threatened that if this was refused, the Nazis would abstain from voting and could not be restrained from causing serious disturbances during the poll. The two Ministers also demanded changes in the provincial Governments and other bodies. They required, so I am informed, an answer from the Chancellor, before 1 o’clock in the afternoon. The Chancellor declined to accept this ultimatum, but offered a compromise under which a second plebiscite should be held later, with regular voting lists. In the meantime, he said, he would be prepared to make it clear that voters might vote for his policy but against him personally, in order to prove that the plebiscite was not a personal question of his remaining in office. Later that day, feeling himself to be under threat of civil war and a possible military invasion, the Chancellor gave way to the two Ministers and agreed to cancel the plebiscite on condition that the tranquillity of the country was not disturbed by the Nazis.
Eve Neuhaus 
Yes, the parallels are alarming, and, yes, the far right represents the type of threat this history is teaching us about, but the last thing we need in the US is for those who do not identify with the far right to smugly assume that if we keep the far right out of power democracy is successfully defended, so long as the bipartisan mainstream continues to fund a globe-girdling empire that routinely undermines and even overturns elected leadership on a global basis, often with massive violence.
We are approaching a solemn anniversary. April 4th, 2024 will be exactly 57 years since Dr. Martin Luther King delivered his most prophetic address: “Beyond Vietnam: a Time to Break Silence.” It will be exactly 56 years since he was murdered. I would suggest that all Americans observe these anniversaries by reading or listening to this powerful speech, question whether its message has ever sunk in with our “leadership class,” and commit to doing everything we can to induce our nation to live up to its challenge. The multiple decades during which the challenge has NOT been lived up to have led to tens of millions of premature deaths from violence and from privation, and to deep shadows of oppression cast over much of the world. Today, no less than 57 years ago, we are confronted by what Dr. King calls “the fierce urgency of now.”
Resistance can include facets that are cultural and community-building in nature, and “Red Vienna” illuminates elements of this process, but genuine community at home needs to extend to ceasing to be oppressors abroad. Hope is esseential; Dr. King reminds us that “When our days become dreary with low-hanging clouds and our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, we will know that we are living in the creative turmoil of a genuine civilization struggling to be born.”
Or, in the words of Nigerian depth psychologist Bayo Akomolafe: “They tried to bury us, forgetting that we are seeds.”
Very scary. Schuschnigg could not rely
I don’t suppose th
The parallels are certainly alarming.
A few days ago, I was reading about the French collaborationist government during WWII. The prime minister, Pierre Laval, was a lawyer who started as a Socialist minister. He was Petain’s number two.
On one hand, Laval tried to modify and soften the Reich’s demands (such as for forced labor), and on other issues, he did … not.
I read what Charles De gaulle said of Laval.
In essence, de Gaulle sees Laval as tragic, as Laval thought he was clever enough to work around the Reich, as he had always done to his opponents. But instead, he kept giving bits of himself away in a no-win situation, more and more, as the Reich was implacable. He had never met an enemy like the Reich.
Hard not to think of Linday Graham and the other US collaborationists.
Laval was tried and executed.
Remember, de Gaulle led the Free French resistance movement who fought this regime. He sais of Laval:
“Naturally inclined, accustomed by the regime, to approach matters from below, Laval held that, whatever happens, it is important to be in power, that a certain degree of astuteness always controls the situation, that there is no event that cannot be turned around, no men that cannot be handled.
He had, in the cataclysm, felt the misfortune of the country but also the opportunity to take the reins and apply on a vast scale the capacity he had to deal with anything. But the victorious Reich was a partner who did not intend to compromise. For, despite everything […] he had to embrace the disaster of France. He accepted the condition.
He judged that it was possible to take advantage of the worst, to use even the point of servitude, to even associate oneself with the invader, to make oneself an asset of the most terrible repression. To carry out his policy, he renounced the honor of the country, the independence of the State, and national pride.
Now, these elements reappeared alive and demanding as the enemy weakened. Laval had played. He had lost. He had the courage to admit that he was responsible for the consequences.
No doubt, in his government, deploying all the resources of ruse, all the resources of obstinacy to support the unsustainable, he sought to serve his country. Let that be left to him!”
Wow, that’s very interesting. It brings to mind the doctor in the series A French Village, who also collaborated for all the best reasons. I hadn’t heard of Laval before, thanks.
I haven’t started the serious research for the third book, which is set in France between 1938-42. Right now I’m learning about what happened in Vienna and the world between mid-1937 to a few days after the Anschluss, March 13-14, 1938.