The Rhineland was still German territory. It was just a buffer zone between Germany and the low countries and France. If you squint real hard, occupying it with a whole bunch of military fortifications and soldiers is stilll just internal security. Austria, on the other hand, was beyond a shadow of a doubt a whole separate, sovereign, nation. It also was the first to be absorbed into Greater Germany in 1938. Although it wasn’t done by an actual invasion, it definitely was done at gun point.
The Indictment charged “in that Germany did, on or about 13 March 1938 annex Austria in to the German Reich in violation of the provisions of Article 80 of the Treaty of Versailles.[ Indictment App. C]” That it “.., during the period from 12 February 1938 to 13 February 1938 did by duress and varioius aggressive acts, including the use of military force cause the Fedeeral State of Austria to yield up its sovereignty to the German State in voilation of German’s agreement to recognize the fulle sovreignty of the Federal State of Austria.[ Indictment App. C]” It went on to charge “In that Germany did, on or about 11 March 1938, at various points and places along the German-Austria frontier with with a military force and in violation of its solemn declaration and assurance, invade and anex to Germany the territory of the Federal State of Austria.[ Indcitment App. C]”
Although Germany and Austria had been attempting to unite since the end of World War I, they had been prevented from doing so by other nations. Specifically the Treaty of Versailles forbade any attempt at unification without permission Council of League of Nations. Of course, by 1938, after ignoring the remilitarized Rhineland, Germany had a good bet that when nothing came of the League’s finding regarding the Rhineland, they were safe from consequences for grabbing Austria. And no one would have said anything, most likely, if the plebiscite scheduled on that very subject had come out in favor of reunification. But Germany didn’t wait. The Chancellor of Austria, Kurt Schuschnigg was called to the Berchestgaden in February 1938. There was was “bullied” as Shawcross would later call it.[ IMT p. 1451] .He was removed from office and succeeded by the collaborator Arthur Seyss -Inquart, now Defendant Seyss-Inquart. Upon taking over the Chancellorship, he immediately opened the border and asked Hitler to come on in in order “to preserve order.[ IMT p. 769]” Which Hitler did on March 12, 1938, the Anschluss. This despite Germany stating on multiple occasions that it had no designs on Austria.[ IMT p. 769]
Much like the Rhineland Provisions, the issue of Austria in the Versailles Treaty was pretty clear. Article 80 in Section VI of the peace treaty is only one paragraph “Germany acknowledges and will respect the strict independence of Austria, within the frontiers which may be fixed in a Treaty between that State and the Principal Allied and Associated Powers; she agrees that this independence shall be inalienable, except with the consent of the Counsel of the League of Nations.
It has already been established that the Treaty of Versailles was valid. With respect to this specific incident, Germany was bound by the provisions, even with respect to Austria that was not a signatory. Because they had agreed to respect Austria as a sovereign nation. That’s means no acting in a way to affects the sovereignty of the nation. Uniting the nation by force, or threat of force, is not respecting the independence. Even if invited in. Again, if the plebiscite had been held, and Austria acting as a sovereign nation had agreed to uniting the country, that would have been a different matter, not matter what the League might have said afterwards about needing permission. But forcing the removal of the legal head of state and imposing a puppet leader who then “invites” the invading nation is does not respect independence of the sovereign nation. Because it wasn’t acting inependently but only at the will of the Nazi controllers. The League, of course, did not sanction any unification ahead of the Anschluss. They never gave permission for Germany to play footsie with Austria let alone take the whole darn thing over. Given this, inclusion of the violation of the the Treaty of Versailles with regards to the takeover of independent Austria was justified.
The second part of the Austrian charge referenced the 1936, just two years before the Anschluss, the Austro German Agreement of July 11, 1936.. This 1936 Agreement provided unequivocally that “The German Government recognizes the full sovereignty of the Federal State of Austria[ IMT p. 1566] …” Now there was a little caveat that went[ IMT p. 1566] on “in the sense of the pronouncements of the German Leader and Chancellor on the 21st of May 1935.” So Hitler may have left himself some wiggle room. But not enough to take over the while country. This Agreement would seem to be a realization of the fact that Germany and Austria would not be united.
The next bit of the charge can be found in a speech a speech given by Hitler before a special session of the German Reichstag on May 21, 1935 Speeches fall under a special category of international law. Sometimes, they are law, sometimes they are not. In typical Hitler fashion it was a long speech. He went over history since the Treaty of Versailles.[ Hitler Speeches p. 1218-1247] His big point was that German people are entitled to self-determination no matter where located (thanks Wilson). His job, as he claimed, was to make sure that happened (paraphrasing heavily here).[ Hitler’s Speeches p. 1218-1247] Specifically regarding Austria, he said “Germany neither intends to nor wishes to interfere win the domestic affiairs of Austria, to annex Austria or to attach the hat country to her.[ Hitler’s speeches 1218—1247]” This came right before the whole self-determination comment. Now was this speech enough to qualify as international law that must be obeyed? Probably not.
Hitler certainly had the authority to set official policy. He certainly had the authority to bind Germany to any policy he set. He was the one who had the authority to delegate the ability to others to act on Germany’s behalf. If he could delegate, he had the authority himself. But, that was not enough.
For it to enter into law, it had to be communicated to Austria through official channels. How was this speech used? The charge based itself on a text of the speech appearing in German newspapers. Could Austria have found out about this speech through reading a newspaper? As part of his duties the Austrian Ambassador to the Reich most likely read the daily papers. Allowing a speech to be printed in the newspapers does not constitute a diplomtic exchange of notes, even knowing it will be read by the other nation. Strike one.
This speech was cited among the assurances, which are the most problematic of all the charges in the Indictment. But was it an assurance even? Based on the fact that Hitler said he was going to help all Germans everywhere have self-determination would seem less than re-assuring to any nation that had a large German population like say …. Austria. Even if he did say right before it that no annexation would happen. Germans in Austria could exercise self-determination without annexation (which of course, raises the questoin what about all the non-Germans right to self-determination?). They were not concentrated in one area like in the Sudetenland as we will shortly see, that would allow partitition. This is not any assurance that Austria was safe. Strike two.
Calming Austrian fears about a takeover wasn’t even the point of the speech anyway. Hitler was trying to get more money out of the Reichstag to build up the German Army.[ Hitler’s speeches p. 1246] You know so he could remilitarize the Rhineland a year later. A call for a military build up is in no world considered an assurance to any nation that might be on the receiving end of said built up military. Austria was so no re-assured by this speech that they made an official complain on May 27, 1935.[ Docs German Foreign Policyu p 213-218] They rightly interpreted this speech as not being the words of a man with no intentions of compromising another nation’s sovereignty. Strike three. This so-called assurance is out. Although Germany violated the sovereignty of Austria through the Anschluss, it did not violate this assurance.
The assurance based on a speech should never have been used in the Indictment. Using just the Versailles Treaty alone would have been sufficient to show Nazi intentions of aggression against its neighbors. Add in Locarno for the Rhineland and the Austro-German Agreement for Austria and you have a further basis. The assurance was superfluous and subtracted from the charge rather than enhanced it.
Germany was now batting 1000. It was two for two on attempts to ignore the clear terms of the Versailles Treaty. Instead of attempting to rewrite it and being stymied, Hitler just ignored it. No one stopped him. So he turned his attention next to the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia.