Austria's viability debate after 1918

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The viability debate in Austria was a discussion started immediately after the end of the First World War by those in favor of annexation to the German Reich . The thesis of the economic inability of the new small state to survive was mainly advocated by social democrats and German - national liberals. It was a main argument in the propaganda for a connection.

The starting position at the end of 1918

The collapse of the Habsburg Monarchy meant a severe economic, political and also psychological shock for its previously leading German-speaking part. There was a sudden breakdown of a closely interwoven structure and its communication channels, the industry of Austria, which had become small, lost its domestic raw material bases (such as Bohemian coal) and there was an acute famine, especially in Vienna, due to the loss of the agricultural surplus areas. An oversized administrative and organizational apparatus remained in Vienna, which did not fit the new [rump] Austria.

“Connection” as a way out?

Even Victor Adler had already terminally ill, in the first session of the Provisional National Assembly in view of this situation from a life inability German Austria spoken. State Chancellor Karl Renner , previously Adler's closest collaborator, stated at the meeting of the State Council on November 11, 1918 that the Entente was planning to reduce Austria to a “poor and very helpless entity” that could be the only industry that could develop tourism. Otto Bauer , Renner's left rival in Austrian social democracy, initially saw a chance for a socialist development perspective following a democratic and "proletarian" Germany ("where we belong according to history, language and culture"). When this no longer seemed feasible in the short term, Bauer also advocated the thesis of insufficient economic viability. Both Renner and Bauer came from areas that belonged to Czechoslovakia in 1918-19.

The proclamation of the Republic of German-Austria on November 12, 1918 declared itself under these aspects in its Article 2 part of the German Republic - which of course was not allowed by the victorious powers.

The economic argument that the small Alpine republic was unable to survive was subsequently represented for many years, especially in the magazine Der Österreichische Volkswirt, by its editors Walther Federn and Gustav Stolper : Austria never benefited from its own production, but from that of the crown lands, especially Bohemia and Moravia , lived. Vienna is burdened by its bloated administrative apparatus.

Exaggerated pessimism?

However, the acute emergency immediately after the World War obscured a more positive long-term perspective. Austria had roughly the same population density as Switzerland, but had a better raw material base and an agricultural economy that could be expanded. “This gave rise to a legend, fed by numerous factors”.

More optimistic views

Friedrich Hertz was one of the few economists who right from the start affirmed the economic viability of Austria, which had become small . As an alternative to the small state, which was classified as economically unsustainable, and to join it with Germany, the idea of ​​a Danube federation was ventilated after the First World War . The group around the economic theorist and bank president Max Feilchenfeld also saw opportunities for an independent Austria.

The Geneva redevelopment

Since the victorious states of the First World War could not have any interest in a territorial, population and resource-wise enlargement of the defeated Germany, the conviction of the necessity of financial aid for Austria prevailed in the League of Nations . In advance, on May 31, 1922 , the Austrian Chancellor Ignaz Seipel declared the country to be “unfit for life” again for tactical reasons, but made an ostentatious about-face in his speech to the League of Nations on September 6, 1922.

As a result, the Geneva Protocols of October 4, 1922 ordered Austria to implement massive austerity measures and cut civil servants, and granted the country a generous loan, which led to the successful stabilization of the currency. But they also reaffirmed the ban on affiliation in the peace treaties of 1919 .

The so-called Geneva redevelopment included a League of Nations loan in the amount of 650 million gold crowns with a 20-year term.

While Germany fell into severe turbulence and hyperinflation in the wake of the occupation of the Ruhr in 1923 , restructuring succeeded in Austria, which in fact meant the end of the viability debate. However, the country was practically placed under a curate. Alfred Rudolph Zimmermann acted as the League of Nations Commissioner .

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Gustav Spann: Anschluss of Austria . In: Wolfgang Benz , Hermann Graml and Hermann Weiß (eds.): Encyclopedia of National Socialism . Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1997, p. 362.
  2. ^ Norbert Schausberger: Austria and the Peace Conference. On the problem of Austria's viability after 1918 ; In: Isabella Ackerl / Rudolf Neck (Hg): Scientific Commission for Research into the History of the Republic of Austria. Publications Volume 11: Saint-Germain 1919; Verlag für Geschichte und Politik Wien 1989, p. 239.
  3. ^ A b Eduard March: Austrian banking policy in the time of the great change 1913-1923. Using the example of the Creditanstalt für Handel und Gewerbe , Munich 1981, pp. 275f.
  4. ^ Norbert Schausberger: Austria and the Peace Conference. On the problem of Austria's viability after 1918 ; In: Isabella Ackerl / Rudolf Neck (Hg): Scientific Commission for Research into the History of the Republic of Austria. Publications Volume 11: Saint-Germain 1919; Verlag für Geschichte und Politik Wien 1989, p. 255; he sums up: Austria is "clearly superior" to Switzerland in terms of production
  5. ^ Norbert Schausberger: Austria and the Peace Conference. On the problem of Austria's viability after 1918 ; In: Isabella Ackerl / Rudolf Neck (Hg): Scientific Commission for Research into the History of the Republic of Austria. Publications Volume 11: Saint-Germain 1919; Verlag für Geschichte und Politik Wien 1989, p. 245; he qualifies this legend as "decisive for the further economic development of the republic and disastrous for the self-image of its citizens".
  6. ↑ Peter Jakob Kock: Danube Federation (19th / 20th century) on the Bavarian Historical Lexicon, accessed on January 13, 2017.
  7. ^ Norbert Schausberger: Austria and the Peace Conference. On the problem of Austria's viability after 1918 ; In: Isabella Ackerl / Rudolf Neck (Hg): Scientific Commission for Research into the History of the Republic of Austria. Publications Volume 11: Saint-Germain 1919; Verlag für Geschichte und Politik Wien 1989, p. 234

literature

  • Gustav Stolper: German Austria as a social and economic problem , Munich 1920.
  • Michael Hainisch (ed.): Economic conditions of German-Austria . Munich 1919.
  • Franz Heiderich: The economic forces of German Austria . Vienna 1919.
  • Friedrich Hertz: Is Austria economically viable? Vienna 1921.
  • Karl Hudeczek: The economic forces of Austria . Vienna 1920.
  • Eduard März : Austrian banking policy in the time of the great turning point 1913-1923. Using the example of the Creditanstalt for Commerce and Industry. Munich 1981, especially p. 275ff.
  • Karl Menshengen: German Austria's Economic Future . Olomouc 1919.
  • Norbert Schausberger : Austria and the Peace Conference. On the problem of Austria's viability after 1918. In: Isabella Ackerl , Rudolf Neck (Hrsg.): Scientific commission for researching the history of the Republic of Austria. Publications Volume 11: Saint-Germain 1919, Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, Vienna 1989.
  • Siegfried Strakosch : The suicide of a people. Economy in Austria. Vienna 1922.