Download Kroiher, Erik Sidney - Indiana Military Org

Kroiher, Erik Sidney
Aspects of the involvement of the House of Habsburg in the activities
of the Austrian Resistance 1938 – 1945
BIBLIOTHEK
Dokementationarchiv
Des osterreichischen
Widerstandes
1
Contents




















The origins of the House of Habsburg
The Habsburgs as Roman Emperors
The Austrian Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy 1804 –
1918
The Imperial Family in exile 1919 – 1935
The political situation in Austria before March 1938
Federal Chancellor Schuschnigg’s position
The contacts between the Chancellor and Otto von Habsburg
The >> Anschlub << 1938 and the Habsburg reaction
The involvement of the Imperial Family in the internal
organization of resistance in Austria
The contacts of Otto von Habsburg to the Daladier government
Archduke Robert’s intervention in Britain
The work of Otto’s brothers Feliz and Karl-Ludwig
Financial resources
Empress Zita’s engagement in North America
Enemies of the House of Austria – Which factors hampered the
Habsburg’s work ? / Conclusion
The omissions of Habsburg
Final Thesis
Footnotes
Bibliography
Index
2
Abstract
When Austria was occupied by Nazi Germany in March 1938, the
House of Habsburg who ruled Austria until 1918 became actively
involved in resistance activities against National Socialism. Their
actions have caused different interpretations ever since. Whereas
some historians propagate the thesis that the political work of the
Imperial Family was of the greatest significance in the eventual rebirth
of Austria, others argue the opposite case. Many opinions are based
simply on general attitudes and emotions. In this essay I will try to
discuss the actions of the Habsburgs during the period from 1938 –
1945 with reference to both internal and external events by using
information from documents, original newspapers, interviews and
books. I will pay special attention to the relations of Archduke Otto
von Habsburg with the Schuschnigg government before and after the
invasion, the Habsburg intervention in France between 1938 and 1940
and the reaction of the Daladier government. The contracts to the
British government and American authorities, especially President
Roosevelt will be examined carefully. A discussion of their
achievements as well as their failures and of the role of the Imperial
Family in the organization of the Austrian resistance will bring me to
the conclusion that the House of Habsburg indeed played a significant
role in the process of Austria’s rebirth, although I should not consider
a single group to have been most important in the resistance and
agitation as I believe cardinal measurements of that kind of historical
events is not appropriate.
3
Essay
In the eyes of many people, the Habsburg family had vanished from
the stage of world politics in November 1918, when the AustroHungarian Monarchy collapsed. This assumption becomes rather
disputable if one is examining more closely the political events that
followed the First World War. Especially the period of the Nazioccupation of Austria and the Second World War shows considerable
activities of the Imperial Family particularly in the fields of diplomacy
and in the organization of resistance against Hitler.
However many historians hold very different opinions as to the success
of these activities and their significance. In this essay I shall be trying
to display a picture of the Habsburg efforts in fighting Nazism. Which
is based on mainly primary but also secondary sources to set up an
evidence-based evaluation.
Before entering the process of investigating the time from 1938 to
1945 it is necessary to give a brief history of the House of HabsburgLorraine (Lotheringen). The dynasty’s origin reaches back in history
as far as 1273, when Rudolph I of Habsburg was crowned German
King. With a few exceptions, the title remained in the family. Finally
in 1452 Fredrick III was crowned Roman Emperor ---------- the House
of Luxembourg. The Habsburgs continued to be the sovereigns of the
Holy Roman Empire until 1806 when Emperor Francis II proclaimed
the end of Charlemagne’s Empire, as in anticipation of which Leopold
II’s successor Francis II had in 1804 begun to style himself hereditary
Emperor of Austria. The House of Austria possessed vast areas, too,
which were their hereditary dominions since the family’s possessions
had been divided between the Austrian and the Spanish line in 1556.
Therefore at the latest since Queen Maria Theresia of Hungary and
Archduchess of Austria etc., her dominions had established themselves
as a powerful unity. Through Maria Theresia’s marriage with Francis
Stephen I of Lothringen who was elected Roman Emperor, the family
name became Habsburg-Lothringen. From 1700 to 1866Austria was a
most influential Great Power. But after that time Austria, or, to be
correct, the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy (1867) was slowly but
constantly declining, after a series of political and military defeats and
growing unrest within he country. In 1889 the Empire lost its heir to
the throne, Emperor Francis Joseph I’s only son Rudolph, who either
committed suicide or was murdered – an incident which has not yet
been cleared up completely. The aging Emperor’s nephew, Archduke
4
Francis Ferdinand, who became pretender to the Imperial and Royal
throne, was assassinated in Sarajevo on June 28th, 1914.
Consequently, the First World War was triggered off. In 1916
Archduke Otto von Habsburg’s father, Karl, became Emperor of Austria
and Apostolic King of Hungary and therefore his eldest son Otto the
heir to the throne of the empire. After the collapse of the Danube
Monarchy the Imperial Family was forced to leave Austria on
November 11th, 1918. However, the emperor “only refused to take
part in any governmental affairs but did not really abdicate.” (2) The
Emperor, his consort and their children went via Eckhartsau Castle into
then Swiss exile in 1919. One year later, the Emperor, who was also
Karl IV of Hungary, made two unsuccessful attempts to restore the
monarchy in Hungary in March and October 1920, which resulted in his
deportation to Madeira, where Emperor and King Karl died a few
months later, on April 1st, 1922. The Imperial Family was banned
from visiting Austria and their property was confiscated by the new
Republic. In the years between 1922 and 1938 the Habsburgs lived in
Lequeto in Spain and in Steenockerzeel in Belgium. Besides close
contacts to the Austria and Hungarian legitimist movements, the
Habsburgs did not directly try to intervene in the current political
affairs of Austria. This changed immediately with the growing danger
of an annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany in the second half of the
1930’s.
The events that took place in the last few years before the
Anschlub.
The Schuschnigg regime came under continuous pressure from both
interior and exterior forces. Italy’s support for the government of the
“Patriotic Front” (VF), which represented a system similar to
Mussolini’s fascist state, was diminishing as the relations between
German and Italy improved. As a result, Austria was becoming more
and more isolated in her diplomatic battle for securing the country’s
independence from Germany. Austria was faced with a major
campaign organized by Nazi Germany with the aim to prepare the
country for a Nazi-takeover and to weaken the government. The
Western powers were not to sympathetic towards Schuschnigg’s
Patriotic Front either, as it exercised a rather authoritarian rule and
had in the recent past often supported Italy against Britain and France.
Internally, public discontent was growing too. Two strong groups were
strictly opposing and, indeed, campaigning against the Chancellor’s
single party system. The Social Democrats on one hand and the
German Nationalist/Deutechnationals together with the Nazi Party on
5
the other. Although the Social Democrats strictly opposed Hitler, the
idea of the >>Anschlub<< was supported by leading Socialist
politicians (April 3rd, 1938) in an interview wit the Viennese newspaper
>>Neus Wiener Tagblatt<<, the former Chancellor of State, Dr. Karl
Renner approves of the so-called plebiscite determining Austria’s
incorporation into the German Reich (>> vote in favor <<)(3). The
leader of the “The organization of Revolutionary socialists”, the exiled
Otto Bauer, expressed the view that “…the victory of Socialism could
not be fulfilled by the reactionary desire to re-establish an independent
Austria but only be the panger man revolution”(4). Here it is
necessary to add that there were also leading socialists such as
Heinrich Allina and Karl Hartl who were totally against the
>>Anschlub<<. The Nazi Party was, of course, the strongest pressure
group calling for Austria to be incorporated into the Reich as soon as
possible. Both camps were forbidden by the government consisting of
the two right wing organizations of the Christian Social
(>>Christlichsoziale Partei<<) and the >>Heimwehren<<, the latter a
paramilitary patriotic group. Also within Schuschnigg’s own ranks
there were numerous influential people who fancied an integration of
Austria and the German Reich. Faced with that situation, Schuschnigg
got in touch with the head of the House of Habsburg, Otto. The
Chancellor seriously considered Otto’s offer to take over the
chancellorship on February 17th, 1938. As legitimate successor of a
dynasty which ruled Austria for 650 years and as the son of my late
father,… it is impossible for me not to face what is my inherited duty…
I would like to encourage you to hand over to me the chancellorship so
that, without changing the constitution, the situation would be as
advantageous as it would be through a formal restoration of monarchy
… (5). This indirectly also stressed Otto von Habsburg’s claim on the
Austrian throne, a fact that would cause many disputes in the future.
However in 1938, the monarchist Schuschnigg saw Archduke Otto as
the only person who could manage to unite the resistance against
Hitler’s obvious plans to annex Austria, and, due to the Archduke’s
good relations with many foreign politicians, as the only person to get
support from the Western Powers. But the Archduke had many
opponents too. Especially Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Romania
opposed a return of Habsburg to Austria. Military intervention of these
powers in reaction to such an event seemed not to be impossible.
Schuschnigg’s claim, the only reason why he supported the Legitimists
was to provide an area of resistance against the Nazis, did not justify
many other governments, either (6). However, Schuschnigg did not
decide to let Otto von Habsburg take over governmental responsibility
(7). Meanwhile, in Germany, Hitler was very much aware of the
political threat to his expansion plans which was posed by a possible
6
return of Habsburg to Austria. Therefore the >>Anschlub<< was
given the code name ..Operation Otto<<. Hitler wrote in a letter to
the German High Command,
“To the High Command of the Wehrmacht, Berlin, March 11th, 1938.
Concerns: Operation Otto
Strictly Confidential
If other measures prove to be unsuccessful, I intend to invade Austria
with armed forces in order to establish ‘constitutional grounds’ and to
prevent further acts of violence against the pro-German population.
(8).
Indeed, one day after this message, the troops of Nazi Germany
(Hitler’s 8th Army) invaded Austria. The Schuschnigg cabinet had
resigned the night before and ordered no open resistance to be
undertaken against the Germans (“Ich weiche der Gewalt”) (9).
Besides, great parts of the population approved of the >>Anschlub<<.
The political Engagement of the House of Habsburg in Europe
The evaluation of the Habsburg involvement in organizing resistance
against Hitler is still an object of quarrel in the opinions of different
historians; especially the views of Austrian experts on that issue are
deeply divided. There are two main approaches to the question of
Habsburg involvement in Austrian resistance. A group of historians
propagate the thesis that without the diplomatic efforts of the House of
Austria the country would not have been resurrected after the war. A
supporter of this attitude is Professor Erich Feigl who proves by the
use of documents, letters and interviews that there was nobody in
Austria who contributed so much to the defense and to the
resurrection of Austria as Otto and his Family (10). Another group
holds the opinion that Otto von Habsburg’s interventions were not very
significant and did more damage to Austria than they helped the
country, “Otto Habsburg’s efforts mainly served the purpose to restore
the monarchy and to re-establish pre-World War One conditions” (11).
These two statements show clearly that there exists a major problem
in the historical evaluation of the activities of the House of Austria. It
is therefore necessary to investigate the nature of the events between
1938 and 1945 from a barely factual point of view before conclusions
can be drawn.
7
As soon ad the >>Anschlub<< was proclaimed and the Austrian
justice system was replaced by the German, Otto von Habsburg was
declared a traitor and a warrant was issued. Otto, who had been
staying in Switzerland for the last few weeks before the German
invasion, left for France and got in touch with French officials. His
main concern was to secure the Western Power’s support for the
resurrection of an independent Austria State. His brother, Archduke
Felix, who had been attending the military academy of Wiener
Neustadt, managed to leave Austria immediately after the
>>Anschlub<< through a secret diplomatic intervention of the
Hungarian Embassy. Archduke Robert, Otto’s and Felix’ brother,
meanwhile went to England to get in touch with the Foreign Secretary
Lord Halifax. Due to the intervention of Prince Felix of Luxembourg
who was a friend of Lord Halifax, the Lord agreed to help in persuading
the German authorities, who then were interested in being on good
terms with the British, to allow leading members of the Austrian
Legitimist Movement to leave the country. Through that way many
people who had already been arrested by the Nazis could be released
and continue their efforts against Nazism from abroad.
To the better understanding of the political scene in Austria it is
important to explain the nature of the Legitimist Movement. This was
an organization of people who worked for the restoration of monarchy
as they believed this type of system was the righteous one and the
best to secure the peaceful development of the state. “In theory,
legitimism differs from the notion of monarchism in so far that
monarchism is a general political theory, whereas legitimism (lex,
legis-moral, divine right) can be characterized by its supporters’
loyalty to the ‘legitimate’ heir to the throne, their sovereign. This
difference, however, played a very little role during the time of 1938
and 1945. (12)”. The legitimists were by no means opposing the
principles of democracy in terms of governing a state, but believed
that it was the Devine Right of a king to be the head of state. It is
easy to explain why they were against Nazism: The Nazi propagated a
totalitarian state in which the government, the head of state and the
ideology had to be universal and had to rest in the hands of the same
people. In the Nazi’s views the former system had to be abolished and
society was to be transformed in a revolutionary way. Legitimists saw
no future in radical change and opposed revolution. Furthermore, total
power and the concentration of all responsibilities and bodies of a state
in the hands of a simple group was very suspect to them, as in their
view the prosperity of a country depended on these conditions: The
church, the dynastic principal of monarchy and the democratic system
of a temporarily elected government (although their major concerns
8
were the first two). For all these reasons the legitimists were fierce
enemies of the Nazi dictatorship. The people most respected by the
representatives of legitimism were the members of the House of
Austria in which they saw their sovereigns. To large parts of the
resistance, Archduke Otto and HM Empress Zita therefore became the
symbols f opposition to the Nazi tyrants. The members of the Imperial
Family had various fields and places of work. Archduke Otto was, as I
mentioned earlier, getting in touch with leading French politicians such
as Daladier. It was made clear that the Habsburg interventions,
although being pushed forward by people of a monarchist background,
“didn’t regard the necessity of the restoration of the monarchy as a
condition for their work” (13) Prime Minister Daladier agreed that an
Austrian military unit could be established within the French Armed
Forces and a very detailed plan was set up describing the nature of
that unit. The legitimist resistance coordinators were also allowed to
issue their own newspaper, >>Die Osterreichishe Post<<. Daladier’s
support for the Habsburg cause, the resurrection of an independent
Austria, finally mounted in France’s declaration of a free Austria, based
on the declarations of the League of Nations on February 17th, 1934,
September 27th, 1934, the Stresa Conference on April 14th, 1935 and
finally, the Anglo-French declaration of February 3rd, 1935, in which all
acknowledged the absolute necessity of an independent Austrian state.
While in France and Belgium, the Austrian Emperor’s eldest son also
established his links to the monarchist resistance groups within
Austria. In the beginning there were three major assistance groups
which were led by Baron Karl Burian, Wilheim von Hebra and Franz
Waschnigg. “The active core of the Legitimists was composed of the
nobility, former World War One officers, and some Catholic clergy.
There was a good deal of personal and ideological continuity in the
clandestine work.” (14) Although battered by the Gestapo (Burian and
Hebra were arrested together with some 200 Legitimists), the
resistance groups, who were in constant touch with Otto von
Habsburg, managed to be active throughout the entire period of
occupation. The monarchists (it was at this time possible to use the
terms monarchist and legitimist alternatively for the Habsburg oriented
resistance) in alliance with other groups opposing the Nazi dictatorship
such as the Roman Catholic Youth and Social Democratic circles, were
apart from bringing oppositionary propaganda into circulation,
successful in organizing public actions. “After a football match in
autumn 1938 (>>Rapid<< versus >>Schalke 04<<) a great
demonstration against the >>Anschlub<< was launched of which we
knew in advance.” (15) In Winter 1938/1939 the different groups of
Monarchist resistance were partly assembled within the >>Free
Austrian Movement<<(FAM), where the names of Roman Scholz and
9
Adolf Worobil, who did a great deal of coordination, must not remain
unmentioned. The central leadership waas claimed by Johann Muller,
who headed one of the most significant monarchist movements.
Although many close contacts existed between the different groups,
such as the FAM’s connection with the so called Mayer-Thanner
network and their cooperation with the Catholic peasant circles, it
would be wrong to assume that there was a centrally unified
monarchist resistance. The only two people who can be considered to
have been central organizers were Archduke Otto and Franz
Waschnigg. “However the broad base of the movements also left
them vulnerable to Gestapo informers.” (16) As mentioned previously,
the monarchist groups, which also often worked together with other
resistance circles even the Communists, were of considerable danger
to the Nazis, as they admitted themselves. Above all the clericals and
the legitimists must be viewed today as our truly active opponents.”
(17)
Achievements on governmental bases
As the Austrian Head of State in 1938, President Wilhelm Miklas, had
refused to dismiss the Schuschnigg government and therefore not
appointed Arthur Seib-Inquart, a high ranking Nazi leader, as new
chancellor, the conditions for the Austrian Constitution were not
satisfied. The chancellor had dissolved his own government and
allowed Seifb-Inquart to form a new one. A fact which is illegal
according to the Austrian Constitution of 1929. So, in theory, the
former government was still in office. This has often been denied by
other politicians and some historians, but was constitutionally in order.
Otto, reaffirming the illegality of the >>Anschlub<<, attempted to set
up an Austrian government in exile, which was seen to be a vital step
in order to safeguard the national independence. As almost all
members of the Austrian government, including both Schuschnigg and
President Miklas, were imprisoned, the oldest and highest ranking
member who was in exile, Hans Rott, was to takeover the government
in exile until the restoration of the normal order (18). However, the
Socialists never accepted the memorandum because of their firm
opposition to the authoritarian right wing Schuschnigg government. It
also failed to gain international recognition due to the quarrel over its
legality which was going on within the Austrian emigrants.
Archduke Robert’s field of operation was England, where he
immediately got in touch with the British government officials. Later
on an application to join the Royal Air Force was granted by the
10
Ministry of Aviation (19). The Archduke’s main objective was to get
British assurance of their determination to reinstall an independent
Austria after the war. But in England, unlike in France, the official
reaction towards the Imperial Family was initially very cool, although
their political and social rank was acknowledged. For a long time the
Foreign Office refused to arrange a meeting between Robert and Prime
Minister Winston Churchill (20). However, Winston Churchill’s attitude
towards the House of Austria and their political aims was rather
positive, and there exists evidence that British officials, especially
Anthony Eden, deliberately destroyed contacts between Britain’s Prime
Minister and the Habsburgs (21) for reasons which will be discussed
later in the essay. In an autobiographical note Otto writes “The
importance of my brother’s tireless work in London … can not be overestimated. Robert … had to deal with one of our bitterest enemies.
Anthony Eden who had absolutely no desire for a restoration of
Austria. The fact that England finally supported the pro-Austrian
policy is due to Robert’s work with Winston Churchill (22). Meanwhile,
the Habsburg Family had to move their headquarters from
Steenockerzeel and Paris over to the United States, as Belgium and
France were conquered by Hitler’s invading armies. In fact, the family
managed to escape just in time, and the Nazis particularly searched
for the House of Austria.
Another important factor that has to be dealt with, is indeed the
financial side. Where did the financial supplies come from that
enabled the Habsburgs to continue their battle against National
Socialism, since the family had been deprived of property in 1918 ? It
is quite difficult to come up with a definite answer as this has not been
covered by many documents or books, but one could divide resources
into two different groups. Due to Emperor Karl’s and Empress Zita’s
direct family relations to the Royal Families of Belgium and
Luxembourg and to many very wealthy members of Europe’s high
aristocracy, money was provided from these people. On the other
hand, many influential financiers among those many Americans,
sponsored the Habsburg cause. Here … the Rothchild family should
not be unmentioned. In these matters Empress Zita played the role of
a go-between.
The Habsburg resistance was coordinated by the head of the family,
Otto, and every member of the family had to fulfill a certain task.
“Otto’s political activities were based on a teamwork with his brother
Felix in Lisbon, Robert and Karl-Ludwig. Karl-Ludwig spent the whole
war time in Lisbon, apart from the first part of 1943, when he served
in the >>Austrian Battalion<<. There he was the contact person
11
between the monarchist resistance in Austria and Hungary on one
hand and the exiled monarchist on the other (23).
The Political Engagement of the House of Austria in the United
States and Canada
Another field of operation was America. In 1940 and again from 1943
to 1945 Archduke Otto and Empress Zita stayed in Washington and
New York, following an invitation of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Assisted by two of Otto’s most faithful confidants, Count Alexander
Pallavichini and Count Heinrich Degenfeld, the >>Free Austria
Movement<< was established in the USA to represent the Austrian
Legitimist resistance there. This organization was opposed by the
republican >>Austrian Action<< in which Ferdinand Czernin was a
leading character. The latter was a confidant of Edvard Benes who
was the most defiant enemy of the Habsburgs. Benes is often
considered the leader of the “Anti-Habsburg-League” in the USA and in
the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the contacts between the
Habsburgs and the president can be described as very good. The
circle around Otto and the Empress, consisting of members of the
former government and the aristocracy, such as Count Richard von
(portion of sentence illegible) Bruno Walter. The political agitation
mounted in the US government’s declaration of July 25th, 1942 in
which the illegality of the >>Anschlub<< was acknowledged and the
restoration of the Austrian state made an official war aim. “This
government has never taken the position that Austria was legally
absorbed into the German Reich (24).”
After that even the British government’s Foreign Secretary, Anthony
Eden, declared that “His Majesty’s government does not have to
accept the constitutional changes in Austria after March 1938 (25).”
In other words, the positive US reaction to the Habsburg interventions
produced a more friendly attitude of British government towards Otto’s
cause. Strong support for the Habsburg came from influential Jewish
circles in America. Many Jews were very favorably disposed to the
Habsburgs due to the protection which the Jews had enjoyed during
the times of the Empire. The FAM (Free Austria Movement)
established a newspaper, the >>Voice of America<<, published by
Martin Fuchs, Erik von Kuehnlt-Leddhin and many others.
To summarize, the echo the Habsburgs received in America, was very
positive indeed. They gained the President’s personal support, were
assisted by many important groups and enjoyed the benevolence of
large parts of the population. However, the Archduke’s plan to set up
12
an >>Austrian Battalion<< following the same attempt which had
been made in France two years earlier, failed. “On November 9th,
1942 the American Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, announced
the formation of an >>Austrian Battalion<< within the US Armed
Forces. However, the >>Independent Infantry Battalion No. 101<<
only lasted a short time (26).” The Austrian military unit, although
strongly supported by Roosevelt and General Sikorski, the leader of
the Polish government-in-exile together with numerous other
Socialists. The number of Austrians who agreed to join the battalion
was not sufficient, either. Therefore the unit was abandoned and its
members dismissed.
In Canada, where Empress Zita and her sons got in touch with
government officials, their efforts were crowned with considerable
success, and the FAM as well as the Imperial Family were given the
opportunity to continue their work against Hitler and for the Austrian
rebirth. In Earl Athione, the general governor of Canada, the House of
Austria found a powerful supporter. The Empress and Archduke
Rudolph stayed in Canada for most of the war, but most of the
monarchist agitation after 1941 took place in the United States which
“…consequently became the centre of the monarchist activities in exile
(27).”
The Opponents of the Habsburgs and their reasons for the
agitation – which were the omissions of the Imperial Family
Besides their obvious enemies, which were the Nazis and their allies,
the Family’s work was opposed by various other political groups. As I
mentioned earlier, the Habsburgs did not win many friends among the
Revolutionary Socialists or Otto Bauer which was a quite important
group within the Austrian political scenery. They were in favor of the
>>Anschlub<< idea – which the Imperial Family strictly opposed.
Furthermore, their socialist attitude stood against the conservative of
the Habsburgs. They actively worked against the Imperial Family
throughout the whole war.
The Communists were another group opposing the Imperial Family for
ideological reasons. Although the principles of monarchism and
communism strictly oppose each other, they worked together
sometimes, as both camps – or at least certain representatives –
realized that they were fighting the same enemy and therefore agreed
to an ‘armistice’ for the time being. But nevertheless conflicts did
arise as many aims of the supporter of all Communist resistance, the
Soviet Union, differed greatly from the Legitimists intervention.
13
Naturally the Stalin Regime worked actively against the Legitimist
resistance. The alliance with Stalin after 1941 did also hamper the
relations between the Western powers and the Habsburgs as Britain
and the United States did not dare to challenge the pact with the
Soviets.
Many members of the republican resistance saw the danger of a
restoration of monarchy in the support for Hapsburg. The Imperial
Family had indeed never clarified for which ‘Austria’ and for ‘which
Hungary’ they were campaigning. The borders which were drawn in
1918/1919 caused much disagreement, dispute and fury, especially in
Austria and Hungary, as these countries had to hand over vas areas to
the newly created states. The House of Habsburg did not accept these
changes on Europe’s map, either, and, further more, wee naturally by
no means opposing a shift towards monarchy, which, they thought,
could happen through a plebiscite (28). However, the restoration was
not the condition for their work (13). Nevertheless, the Habsburg’s
omission to state clearly the definite areas which concerned them in
their agitation within the Austrian and Hungarian resistance as well as
the attempts to re-create a larger geo-political unity within the Danube
area irritated not only many Austrian Resistance politicians.
This leads directly to another group of fierce animosity towards
Archduke Otto and his confidants: the nationalists from many of those
states which succeeded the Austro-Hungarian Empire, most of all
Edvard Bebes. The Socialist Benes saw the national sovereignty of
Czechoslovakia severely endangered by the activities of the family of
their former rulers. An attitude which is understandable from Benes’s
point of view, being one of those who deposed the monarchy in
Bohemia, Moravia and Slovakia and formed the Czech Republic.
Another, quite different reservoir of rejection of the Habsburg
engagement, as mentioned earlier in the essay, came from British and
American officials for which three main reasons can be given. First of
all, Western governments were concerned about possible – and indeed
activated – resistance from the governments-in-exile of those occupied
countries that had been parts of the old Danube Monarchy, another
reason was (after 1941) the concern not to annoy the Soviets who
naturally opposed the ‘reactionary’ Legitimist movement. Lastly,
personal reasons should not be left out, either. Certain British and
American politicians, among those Anthony Eden, showed feelings of
hatred against the Habsburgs because of their Roman Catholic religion
and out of historical enmity against the former opponent Austria-
14
Hungary. According to Anthony Eden a separated Austria had always
caused harassment in its political relations to Germany.
Though that analysis of the work of the Hapsburg Family I have come
to the conclusion that the claim that the Imperial Family only worked
for the restoration of their former power as a necessity for their
activities is evidently not true. On the other hand, I should not
support the thesis that their work was ‘most significant and nobody
else contribute so much’ (10) as it is almost impossible in history to
pose such cardinal statements. However, I have gained the opinion
that the Habsburgs were indeed important characters within the
Austrian resistance movement against Hitler, and their work was
certainly of great historical importance, as well as the work of other
groups and thus contributed much to the outcome of the Moscow
Declaration which declared Austria a victim of Nazi Germany’s
aggression and therefore had to be freed.
15
Footnotes
1) Enc. Britannica, page 520
2) Portisch, Hugo, page 68
3) Feigl, Erich, page 51
4) Der Sozialistische Kampf
5) Habsburg, Otto, Archduke of, Interview
6) Schmiedl, Erwin A., page 18
7) Schuschnig, Kurt von,
8) Feigl, Erich, page 44
9) Schuschnigg, Kurt von, radio broadcast, “I give way to the force”
10) Feigl, Erich, page 8
11) Maimann, Helene, page 227
12) Winter, E. K., page 25 “Voice of Austria”
13) Feigl, Erich, page 55
14) Luza, Radomir V., page 30
15) Kroiher, Josef K., interview
16) Luza, Radomir V., page33
17) (can’t read)
18) Memorandum, Dec., 1939, (Die Illegalitat des Anschlubes)
19) Doc., Public Record Office
20) Doc., Public Record Office
21) Doc., Public Record Office
22) Feigl, Erich, page 144
23 ) Spinka, Matthew, page 379-381
24) Doc., State Department
25) Doc., State Department
26) Goldinger, Franz, page 126
27) D. O. W., page 33, Seminar Work
28) Donay-Echo, Nov 15th, 1942
16