Obviously there are things they do not disagree on.
For instance, AFTER the Anschluss, Euthanasia started. By then Kurt von Schuschnigg was either in house arrest or already in Dachau. So, he is not contradicting Kitty Wehrtmann.
But if Kitty Wehrtmann thinks that 98% of Austrians wanted Hitler, sorry, that is some Jewish hysteria. Kurt von Schuschnigg tells another story. He was chancellor and dictator of Austria from the day when Dollfuß was killed by a Nazi to the weeks between his meeting Hitler in Berchtesgaden and the Anschluß and Einmarsch themselves.
There had been about one third each of every party: Austrofascist, Austromarxist, Nazi. The streets that were full of men and women shouting to welcome Hitler, that was first and foremost the third that dared express itself. As for 98% of referendum, well, yes, either the two thirds mostly stayed home on ballot day too or the ballot boxes were counted by devout Nazis.
As for 25% interest in the banks and 25% inflation in Austria in 1938, it would probably be her parents recalled the reasons behind 1933 in Germany and thought - very erroneously - that it was the same.
I do not think Austrofascists would have allowed a bank to take 25% interest. And I do not think that its politics were quite as bad as a result of 25% unemployment.
What happened was Hitler putting more and more pressure on Austria for Anschluß, first Austria was defended by Mussolini in 1936 (guess why I have a soft spot for Benito, and that is not the only good deed), then Schuschnigg wanted to try a referendum about independence, which if conducted independently might have give two thirds majority for staying independent (remember: one third Nazis, one third Socialists, one third Austrofascists), but then he withdrew March 11 1938 under the threat of Göring making a phone call, Seyß-Inquart was new chancellor, March 13 the troops went in without Seyß-Inquart opposing them, and the final referendum was organised with the troops in place.
It can be noted that Concentration Camps for Gipsies were introduced AFTER the Anschluß. One Robert Ritter was a shrink and pretended to be able to foresee criminality on biological evidence of family background. You have guessed it, he was not an Austrofascist, he was a Nazi. He was also a Psychiatrist in Zurich and then in Tuebingen. That is the kind of practical Calvinists (of modernist dechristinaised bent) who were behind such horrors, and not Catholics like Dollfuß or Schuschnigg.
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Archippus, disciple of
- Fatima - Bad News and Good News - the latter provi...
- Panthéisme ? Non. Trinité ? Oui.
- Do not support World Childhood Foundation!
- Hans-Georg Gadamer was of the "Frankfurter Schule"? - get Inklings for me please!
- A Relevant Quote from J. R. R. Tolkien
- Sur le concept de l'ésotérique et sur les sociétés secrètes
- In Case Someone Thinks I am Preaching ...
- Would Gay Marriage Allow them an Authentic Life?
- Malfaisance de "Sécurité"
- Have I Done Ill Speaking Against the Real Pope a F...
- Drodzy Polacy - i Rosjanie itd.
- Vatican in Exile : Calendar and Marian Anthems
- Code ASCII et James Bond