No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 February 2009
The riots that took place in Vienna in July, 1927, and the unsuccessful strikes that followed them came to be regarded almost immediately as a turning point in the history of Austria's first republic. In a flash, the Social Democratic Party, which had made the best relative showing in the parliamentary elections in April of that year, was thrown on the defensive, while within a few months the governing anti-socialist groups dominated by the Christian Social Party began to gather their forces for a vigorous political offensive. In the forefront of the anti-socialist drive stood the various paramilitary Heimwehren, which had played a leading role in foiling the nationwide strikes in July. Capitalizing on the widespread fear that the socialist leaders were preparing to wage violent class warfare, the Heimwehr leaders rapidly expanded their provincial organizations and used them as militarized pressure groups. They sought to depict the Heimwehr as a popular movement that would save Austria's traditional social order by enabling—or forcing—the “bourgeois” parliamentarians to stand firm against the socialists.
1 The names of the provincial organizations varied. The terms Heimatdienst (Home Service), Selbstschutzverband (Self-Defense League), Heimwehr or Heimatwehr (Home Guard), and Heimatschutzverband (Home Defense League) were all used. When referring to specific provincial organizations, I will generally use the appropriate German names, as nearly according to contemporary usage as possible. When referring to the movement in general or to. Heimwehr confederations or organizations, I will use the name Heimwehr (even in instances where they had other titles, such as the Selbstschutzverbände); however, when speaking of several provincial units as autonomous groups I will use the plural term “Heimwehren.” Unfortunately, I have found it impossible to be consistent in every case. The Social Democratic paramilitary organization will be referred to as the Schutzbund.
2 See Kerekes, Lajos, “Die ‘Weisse Allianz’. Bayrisch-österreichischungarische Projekte gegen die Regierung Renner im Jahre 1920,” Österreichische Osthefte, Vol. VII, No. 5 (09, 1965), pp. 353–366.Google Scholar See also Wulf Schmidt-Wulffen, “Das Burgenland und die deutsche Politik 1918–1921,” ibid., Vol. XI, No. 5 (September, 1969), pp. 270–287.
3 See his Austria from Habsburg to Hitler (2 vols., Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1948), Vol. I, pp. 129–133.Google Scholar
4 See his “Austria,” in Woolf, Stuart J. (ed.), European Fascism (New York: Vintage Books, 1969), p. 90.Google Scholar
5 In addition to Gulick's and Stadler's works, cited immediately above, see also Benedikt, Heinrich (ed.), Geschichte der Republik Österreich (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1954)Google Scholar; Carsten, Francis L., The Rise of Fascism (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Diamant, Alfred, Austrian Catholics and the First Republic: Democracy, Capitalism and the Social Order, 1918–1934 (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1960)Google Scholar; von Klemperer, Klemens, “Chancellor Seipel and the Crisis of Democracy in Austria,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XXII, No. 4 (01, 1963), pp. 468–478Google Scholar; Sauer, Wolfgang, “National Socialism: Totalitarianism or Fascism?”, The American Historical Review, Vol. LXXIII, No. 2 (12, 1967), pp. 404–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Whiteside, Andrew G., “Austria,” in Rogger, Hans and Weber, Eugen (eds.), The European Right: A Historical Profile (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1965), pp. 308–363.Google Scholar
6 Prince Ernst Rüdiger Starhemberg describes the occurrence of such an incident in Linz in his Between Hitler and Mussolini (New York: Harper, 1942), pp. 5–6Google Scholar; and in his Memoiren (Vienna: Amalthea Verlag, 1971), p. 40.Google Scholar
7 Steinbock, Erwin, Die Volkswehr in Kärnten. Unter Berücksichtigung des Einsatzes der Freiwilligenverbände. In Publikationen des österreichischen Instituts für Zeitgeschichte, No. 2 (Vienna: Stiasny, 1963), pp. 8–9 and 52.Google Scholar
8 Wandruszka, Adam, “Österreichs politische Struktur. Die Entwicklung der Parteien und politischen Bewegungen,” in Benedikt, Geschichte der Republik Österreich, pp. 360–361.Google Scholar
9 notable example occurred at the time of the Kapp putsch in Germany, when a rightist delegation vainly attempted to enlist the aid of the German minister in Austria for a coup d'état. The British high commissioner in Austria, F. O. Lindley, wrote Lord Curzon on March 19, 1920, that Minister Frederic von Rosenberg refused to receive the Austrians. Public Record Office (London), Foreign Office, Ser. 371, Reference 3536, Paper 187,077. See also Lindley to Curzon, Vienna, June 6, 1920 (confidential), enclosing reports by Colonel F. W. Gossett, chief of the British delegation to the Inter-Allied Military Commission, Vienna, May 29,1920, and by Lieutenant-Colonel T. M. Cunninghame, British military attaché, Vienna, June 4, 1920, ibid., Ser. 371, Reference 3538, Paper C20,303; and Lindley to Curzon (confidential), Vienna, July 10, 1920, ibid., Ser. 371, Reference 4648, Paper C1429. In the second letter Lindley expressed his belief that the Christian Social politicians involved in these schemes were primarily concerned with creating a reliable armed force to support them in case they won an electoral victory.
10 Kerekes, Lajos, “Italien, Ungarn und die Österreichische Heimwehrbewegung 1928–1931,” Österreich in Geschichte und Literatur, Vol. IX, No. 1 (01, 1965), pp. 2–3Google Scholar; Kerekes, , “Die ‘Weisse Allianz,’” pp. 355–368Google Scholar; Schmidt-Wulffen, , “Das Burgenland und die deutsche Politik 1918–1921,” pp. 274–276.Google Scholar See also Kerekes, Lajos, “Akten des ungarischen Ministeriums des Äusseren zur Vorgeschichte der Annexion Österreichs,”. Acta Historica. Journal of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Vol. VII, No. 3–4 (1960), pp. 358–359.Google Scholar
11 Heimatschutz in Österreich, published under the Supervision of the Propaganda Office of the Federal Leader (Vienna: Zoller Verlag, 1934), p. 239.Google ScholarPubMed
12 Kanzler, Rudolf, Bayerns Kampf gegen den Bolschewismus, Geschichte der bayrischen Einwohnerwehren (Munich: Verlag Parcus & Co., 1931), pp. 89–92.Google Scholar For the text of the resolution see p. 246.
13 German consulate (Gebsattel) to foreign ministry, Innsbruck, October 20, 1921, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich), Vol. I (1920–1926).Google Scholar
14 “Lebenserinnerungen des Fü;rsten Ernst Rüdiger Starhemberg von ihm selbst verfasst im Winter 1938–39 in Saint Gervais in Frankreich” (typescript in the Archiv des österreichischen Instituts für Zeitgeschichte, Vienna), pp. 34–35. See also Starhemberg, Memoiren, p. 42.
15 There is some confusion about Pabst's rank. In Austria he was always known as “Herr Major,” and Harold J. Gordon, Jr., reports that in July, 1919, Pabst was eased out of the army “with a terminal promotion to rank of major.” See Gordon, , The Reichswehr and the German Republic, 1919–1986 (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1957), pp. 97–98.Google Scholar However, Gustav Noske contended that he did not promote Pabst before retiring him from active duty. See his Von Kiel bis Kapp. Zur Geschichte der deutschen Revolution (Berlin: Verlag für Politik und Wirtschaft, 1920), p. 200.Google Scholar When in 1929 the German government cut off Pabst's pension on the ground that he was no longer a citizen—a ruling that Pabst successfully contested—he was still officially referred to as a captain, although by that time the German consul in Innsbruck had accepted his self-styled promotion to major. See relevant documents from late 1929 and early 1930 in Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich), Vol. III (September 20, 1929–December 1, 1931).Google Scholar
16 Interview with Waldemar Pabst at Düsseldorf on December 7, 1963; interview with Count Peter Revertera, at Helfenberg, Upper Austria, on July 22 and 23, 1963, arranged through the courtesy of and attended by Prof. Ludwig Jedlicka; Hoegner, Wilhelm, Die Verratene Republik. Geschichte der deutschen Gegenrevolution (Munich: Isar Verlag, 1958), p. 105Google Scholar; Gatzke, Hans W., Stresemann and the Rearmament of Germany (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1954), pp. 51–52Google Scholar; Winkler, Franz, Die Diktatur in Österreich (Zürich: Orell Füssli Verlag, 1935), p. 25Google Scholar; “Waldemar Pabst,” Der Spiegel, Vol. XVI, No. 16 (04 18, 1962), p. 39Google Scholar; Starhemberg, , Between Hitler and Mussolini, pp. 7–12Google Scholar; Austria, , Stenographische Protokolle über die Sitzungen des Nationalrates, 3. Gesetzgebungsperiode, Vol. III, 11 26, 1929, p. 2989Google Scholar; Neue Freie Presse (Vienna), 06 15, 1930 (morning edition), p. 8.Google Scholar
17 For biographical information on Pfrimer, see Haberleitner, O., “Rechtsanwalt Dr. Walter Pfrimer,” Freie Monatsschrift die Aula, Vol. XI, No. 3 (12, 1960), p. 41.Google Scholar
18 Interview with Dr. Walter Pfrimer at Judenburg, Styria, on June 23, 1963; Ahrer, Jakob, Erlebte Zeitgeschichte (Vienna: Winkler Verlag, 1930), pp. 70–72Google Scholar; Rintelen, Anton, Erinnerungen an Österreichs Weg. Versailles-Berchtesgaden-Grossdeutschland (2nd ed., Munich: Fr. Bruckmann, 1941), pp. 69–60 and 126–127Google Scholar; Kanzler, , Bayerns Kampf gegen den Bolschewismus, pp. 94–96Google Scholar; [Sepp Kogelnik (ed.)], Österreichisches Heimatschutz-Jahrbuch 1933, published by the Provincial Leadership Office of the Styrian Heimatschutzverband (Graz, 1934), pp. 55–56; Winkler, , Die Diktatur in Österreich, p. 24Google Scholar; German consul (Müller) to foreign ministry, Graz, February 4, 1921, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehr-organieation in Österreich), Vol. I (1920–1926).Google Scholar
19 Hiltl Gedenkblatt (Vienna, 1930), pp. 9 and 74–80Google Scholar; Heimatsehutz in Österreich, p. 7Google Scholar; Messerer, Ingeborg, “Die Frontkämpfervereinigung Deutsch-Österreichs. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Wehrverbände in der Republik Österreich” (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Vienna, 1963), pp. 4–7 and 49Google Scholar; Jedlicka, Ludwig, “The Austrian Heimwehr,” in Laqueur, Walter and Mosse, George L. (eds.), International Fascism, 1920–1945 (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1966), p. 131Google Scholar; Lindley to Curzon, Vienna, January 11, 1921 (confidential), enclosing a report by Colonel de Ligny (the French member of the Inter-Allied Military Commission) in respect to the various armed formations in Austria, Public Record Office (London), Foreign Office, Ser. 404/3, pp. 10–16. The 404 series of the foreign office documents are “confidential prints” of selected diplomatic correspondence concerning Central Europe.
20 Kanzler, , Bayerns Kampf gegen den Bolschewismus, pp. 101–102Google Scholar; Kerekes, , “Italien, Ungarn und die Österreichischen Heimwehrbewegung,” p. 3Google Scholar; German legation in Vienna to foreign ministry, September 16, 1920, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich), Vol. I (1920–1926).Google Scholar The German legation's report was based on information provided by an “apparently well informed” Austrian officer and on Colonel de Ligny's report on armed formations in Austria.
21 Kanzler, , Bayerns Kampf gegen den Bolschewismus, p. 104Google Scholar; notes on comments by Dr. Escherich to representatives of the Austrian selfdefense leagues, Munich, July 25, 1920, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich), Vol. I (1920–26).Google Scholar
22 Kerekes, , “Italien, Ungarn und die österreichischen Heimwehrbewegung,” p. 2Google Scholar; Kerekes, , “Die ‘Weisse Allianz,’” pp. 360–362.Google Scholar
23 Baron von der Bussche to Koepke (at the foreign ministry), with the memorandum of a conversation with Pabst in Innsbruck, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich), Vol. III (September 20, 1929–December 1, 1931)Google Scholar; German consul in Innsbruck (Salier) to foreign ministry, January 30, 1930, ibid.
24 Hoegner, , Die Verratene Republik, p. 105Google Scholar; German legation to foreign ministry, Vienna, September 16, 1920, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich), Vol. I (1920–1926)Google Scholar; Rosenberg to foreign ministry (confidential), Vienna, December 11, 1920, ibid.
25 German consulate to foreign ministry, Innsbruck, September 21, 1920, ibid.
26 Rosenberg to foreign ministry (telegram), Vienna, November 11, 1920, ibid.; Lindley to Curzon, Vienna, November 29, 1920, with a copy of a report by Gossett, Vienna, November 19, 1920, Public Record Office (London), Foreign Office, Ser. 371, Reference 4641, Paper C12,430; Lindley to foreign office (telegram), Vienna, November 30, 1920, ibid., Paper 012,686; Lindley to Curzon, Vienna, December 2, 1920, with a copy of a report by Gossett, Vienna, November 30, 1920, ibid., Paper 013,025; Lindley to Curzon (confidential), Vienna, January 11, 1921, ibid., Ser. 404/3, pp. 6–10; Inter-Allied Control Commission in Austria, Liquidation Office, to the Federal Chancellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs (translated into German), Vienna, June 29, 1921, which recounts orders and inquiries dating from December 15, 1920, Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs (Vienna) (hereafter cited as “Verwaltungsarchiv [Vienna]”), Bundesministerium für Inneres und Unterricht, No. 164, 760/1921; decree of section 7 of the federal ministry of interior to all provincial governments, Vienna, July 8, 1921, ibid. In the preliminary draft of the last decree a much harder line was taken towards the paramilitary groups than in the mild version which was actually sent to the provincial governments.
27 German legation (Von Schoen) to foreign ministry, Vienna, January 23, 1921, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich), Vol. I (1920–1926).Google Scholar
28 It should be noted in passing that a year earlier Seipel had made a similar request of the Hungarian minister in Vienna.
29 Theo Russell to Curzon (confidential), Bern, March 4, 1921, with the copy of a memorandum by Lieutenant-Colonel C. C. F. Oppenheim, Public Record Office (London), Foreign Office, Ser. 371, Reference 5770, Paper C4855.
30 Gulya, Katalin, “Die Westungarische Frage nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg. Das Burgenland und die Politik der ungarischen Regierungen 1918–1921,” Österreichische Osthefte, Vol. VIII, No. 2 (03, 1966), pp. 97 and 100, n. 26Google Scholar; Kerekes, , “Italien, Ungarn und die Österreichischen Heimwehrbewegung,” p. 3.Google Scholar See also Gulick, , Austria from Habsburg to Hitler, Vol. I, pp. 128–129.Google Scholar
31 The point of origin of the Bavarian subsidies for the Tyrol at this time is not entirely clear. In January, 1921, Steidle told the German consul that he received no financial aid from Bavaria, but a year later the new consul wrote that a “reliable source” had reported that the Bavarian subsidy had been cut off. See Külmer to foreign ministry, Innsbruck, January 26, 1921, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich), Vol. I (1920–1926)Google Scholar; Kuenzer to foreign ministry, Innsbruck, February 21, 1921, ibid. One may conclude that sometime during 1921 the Tyrolese received money from Bavarian contributors. However, in his informative dissertation Ludgar Rape asserts that Kanzler provided direct subsidies for organizational and propaganda purposes only to right-wing groups in Salzburg (a total of 142,000 marks in 1920) and Styria (12,000 marks for its nationalistic groups). Other provinces got help in the form of salaries for the Organisation Kanzler staff (a total of 41,000 marks monthly). Thus, during much of 1921 the staff chiefs of Salzburg and the Tyrol shared nearly 7,000 marks monthly. See Ludgar Rape, “Die Österreichische Heimwehr und ihre Beziehungen zur bayrischen Rechten zwischen 1920 und 1923” (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Vienna, 1968), pp. 247–249.
32 Müller to foreign ministry, Graz, October 7, 1921, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich), Vol. I (1920–1926)Google Scholar; Österreichisches Heimatschutz-Jahrbuch 1933, pp. 58–60Google Scholar; interview with Pfrimer at Judenburg on June 23, 1963; Pauley, Bruce, “Hahnenschwanz and Swastika: The Styrian Heimatschutz and Austrian National Socialism, 1918–1934” (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Rochester, 1966), p. 55Google Scholar; Kanzler, , Bayerns Kampf gegen den Bolschewismus, pp. 105–106 and 248.Google Scholar
33 Much of Rape's long dissertation, cited in n. 31, deals with the extremely complicated struggle between the various paramilitary organizations in Bavaria for control of the Austrian Heimwehren. His well-researched work is based primarily on illuminating documents which he found in the Organisation Kanzler records in the Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes for 1920–1921; in the records of the Bund Bayern und das Reich in the Kriegsarchiv in Munich; and in the Colonel Max Bauer Nachlaß in the Deutsches Bundesarchiv at Koblenz. The material in the next five paragraphs is based on Rape's dissertation, especially pp. iii–iv, 259, and 404–556.
34 Por Steidle's proposed budget, see Steidle to Seipel, Innsbruck, July 10, 1922, Archiv der Bundes Polizeidirektion (Vienna), Schober Archiv, Fasc. Heimwehr. Steidle requested only 20,000,000 crowns for Vienna and Lower Austria. However, Rape reports that 30,000,000 crowns were allotted to these two provinces; his source is a report by Captain von Oberwurzer, Vienna, July 15, 1922, in the Bauer Nachlaß. See Rape, , “Die österreichische Heimwehr und ihre Beziehungen zur bayrischen Rechten zwischen 1920 und 1923,” p. 448.Google Scholar
35 Report of Major Kundt to the war ministry, Vienna, December 15, 1922, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung IIb, Politik 13 (Militärpolitische Berichten des Majors Kundt, Wien), Vol. I (May, 1920–December, 1927).Google Scholar
36 See ibid.; Gulick, , Austria from Habsburg to Hitler, Vol. I, pp. 130–131Google Scholar; Austria, , Stenographische Protokolle über die Sitzungen des Nationalrates, 1.Google Scholar Gesetzgebungsperiode, Vol. IV, November 14, 1922, pp. 4687–4688 and 4705–4720; Rintelen, , Erinnerungen an Österreichs Weg, pp. 135–136Google Scholar; and Österreichisches Heimatschutz-Jahrbuch 1933, pp. 58–59.Google Scholar
37 Deutsch, Julius, Die Faschistengefahr (Vienna: Verlag der Wiener Volksbuchhandlung, 1923), pp. 22 and 36Google Scholar; Deutsch, Julius, Wer rüstet zum Bürgerkrieg? (Vienna: Verlag der Wiener Volksbuchhandlung, 1923)Google Scholar, passim. See also Gulick, , Austria from Habsburg to Hitler, Vol. II, p. 787.Google Scholar
38 Report by Colonel de Ligny, included in Lindley to Curzon, Vienna, January 11, 1921, Public Record Office (London), Foreign Office, Ser. 404/3, p. 11.Google Scholar
39 Deutsch, Julius, Antifaschismus! Proletarische Wehrhaftigkeit im Kampfe gegen den Faschismus (Vienna: Verlag der Wiener Volksbuchhandlung, 1926)Google Scholar, passim; Gulick, , Austria from Habsburg to Hitler, Vol. I, pp. 132–133Google Scholar; interview with Dr. Julius Deutsch at Bad Hall on July 23, 1963.
40 Heimatschutz in Österreich, pp. 160–171.Google Scholar
41 Deutsch, , Wer rüstet zum Bürgerkrieg?, pp. 37–42.Google Scholar
42 See Gulick, , Austria from Habsburg to Hitler, Vol. I, pp. 683–686Google Scholar; Thalmann, Friedrich, “Die Wirtschaft in Österreich,” in Benedikt, Geschichte der Republik Österreich, pp. 490–496Google Scholar; and Rothschild, K. W., Austria's Economic Development between the Two Wars (London: Frederick Müller, 1947), pp. 36–49.Google Scholar
43 Goldinger, Walter, “Der geschichtliche Ablauf der Ereignisse in Österreich von 1918 bis 1945,” in Benedikt, Geschichte der Republik Österreich, p. 137.Google Scholar
44 Interview with Pabst at Düsseldorf on December 7, 1963.
45 G-2 report, Vienna, June 5, 1925, National Archives (Washington, D. C.) Records of the War Department, General and Special Staffs, Military Intelligence Division, Record Group No. 165 (military attaché reports), Doc. No. 2657–FF-122/2.
46 Albert Henry Washburn, the United States minister to Austria from 1922 to 1930, was told “in strictest secrecy” about Rintelen's complicated maneuvers to gain Mussolini's support by Camillo Castiglioni, an Italian war profiteer and entrepreneur living in Vienna, who claimed that he got in touch with Mussolini on Rintelen's behalf. Washburn found “much in this story to credit.” See Washburn to secretary of state (confidential), Vienna, August 31, 1927, National Archives (Washington, D. C.), Records of the Department of State, No. 863.00/167. For other evidence of Rintelen's machinations in the first part of 1927, see Nemes, D., “‘Die österreichische Aktion’ der Bethlen-Regierung,” Acta Historica. Journal of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Vol. XI, No. 1–4 (1965), pp. 191–192.Google Scholar
47 Kanzler, , Bayerns Kampf gegen den Bolschewismus, pp. 100–101Google Scholar; Heimatschutz in Österreich, pp. 69–74Google Scholar; Rieger, Erwin, Fürstin Fanny Starhemberg (Vienna: Monats Verlag, 1935), pp. 180–181.Google Scholar
48 Interview with Peter Revertera at Helfenberg, Upper Austria, on July 22 and 23, 1963.
49 G-2 report, Vienna, June 5, 1925, National Archives (Washington, D. C.), Records of the War Department, General and Special Staffs, Military Intelligence Division, Record Group No. 165 (military attaché reports), Doc. No. 2657–FF–122/2.
50 ibid. About the agreement concerning the Burgenland, see Schneidmadl, Heinrich, “Der Weg zur Katastrophe. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des 12. Februar 1934” (Vienna, 1959)Google Scholar (typescript in the Stadtarchiv of St. Pölten), p. 1. See also Goldinger, , “Der geschichtliche Ablauf der Ereignisse in Österreich von 1918 bis 1945,” p. 152.Google Scholar
51 Zernatto, Guido, Die Wahrheit über Österreich (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1939), pp. 71–73.Google Scholar
52 Interview with Peter Revertera at Helfenberg, Upper Austria, on July 22 and 23, 1963.
53 Report of Major W. W. Hicks, Vienna, June 12, 1928, National Archives (Washington, D. C.) Records of the War Department, General and Special Staffs, Military Intelligence Division, Record Group No. 165, Doc. No. 2540–150/1.
54 Lord Chilston to Sir Austin Chamberlain, Vienna, July 14 and 20, 1926, Public Record Office (London), Foreign Office, Ser. 371, Reference 11,212, Papers C8052 and C8347.
55 Saller, to Zech, (private), Innsbruck, 08 12, 1926Google Scholar, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich), Vol. I (1920–1926).Google Scholar
56 Saller to foreign ministry, Innsbruck, October 27, 1926, ibid.; Die alpenländische Heimatwehr (Innsbruck), Vol. II, No. 9 (11, 1926), p. 1.Google Scholar
57 See Gulick, , Austria from Habsburg to Hitler, Vol. II, pp. 1049 and 1389–1390Google Scholar; and Deutsch, Julius, Ein weiter Weg. Lebenserinnerungen (Vienna: Amalthea Verlag, 1960), pp. 163–164.Google Scholar
58 See Saller to foreign ministry, Innsbruck, November 19, 1926, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich), Vol. I (1920–1926)Google Scholar; Österreichisches Heimatschutz-Jahrbuch 1933, p. 61.Google Scholar
59 Österreichisches Heimatschutz-Jahrbuch 1933, p. 35.Google Scholar
60 [Karg-Bebenburg, Baron Artur], Die Gefahr im Staate (Vienna: Verlag des Selbstschutzverbandes Niederösterreich, 1926), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
61 In a series of letters to Count Zech at the Austrian desk in the second department of the German Foreign Ministry, Consul Saller gave a running account of affairs within the Heimwehr based on information he had received through “reliable” informants in Innsbruck. See Saller to Zech, January 3, 13, 19, and 31, and February 3 and 4, 1927 (very confidential), Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 5 Oe A (Geheime Akten betreffend Heimwehr Organisationen in Österreich), January, 1927–February, 1933.Google Scholar The information in the four paragraphs which follow comes chiefly from this correspondence. Other sources will be distinguished when necessary.
62 Haniel to foreign ministry (confidential), Munich, January 26 and February 3, 1927, ibid.; Wallraf to foreign ministry (confidential), Munich, January 28, 1927, ibid.; foreign ministry memoranda by Zech, Berlin, January 22 and February 3, 1927, ibid.; Zech, to Sailer, (private), Berlin, 01 28, 1927Google Scholar, ibid.; Saller, to Zech, , Innsbruck, 02 4, 1927Google Scholar, ibid.; Lerchenfeld to foreign ministry, Vienna, February 22, 1927, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich, Vol. II (January 1, 1927–September 19, 1929).Google Scholar
63 We still do not know how much information about the Heimwehr plans reached the Austrian government. It seems apparent, however, that the Austrian minister in Berlin was well informed, for on January 19 he told an official at the German foreign ministry that, because of the extensive reorganizational changes then underway, he thought that any Heimwehr action was unlikely for at least three months. See Zech to Lerchenfeld (private), Berlin, January 19, 1927, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 6 Oe A (Geheime Akten betreffend Heimwehr-Organisationen in Österreich), January, 1927–February, 1933.Google Scholar
64 Lerchenfeld to foreign ministry, Vienna, February 22, 1927, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich, Vol. II (January 1, 1927–September 19, 1929).Google Scholar
65 Neue Freie Presse, 02 4, 1927, p. 5Google Scholar; Gulick, , Austria from Habsburg to Hitler, Vol. I, p. 754.Google Scholar
66 Zech, to Saller, , Berlin, 02 26, 1927Google Scholar, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich), Vol. II (January 1, 1927–September 19, 1929).Google Scholar
67 Lerchenfeld to foreign ministry, Vienna, February 22, 1927, ibid.
68 Heimatschutz-Zeitung, Vol. I, No. 1 (04 14, 1927), p. 1Google Scholar; No. 2 (April 21, 1927), pp. 2–3.
69 On this point, see Gulick, , Austria from Habsburg to Hitler, Vol. I, p. 713.Google Scholar
70 Saller to foreign ministry, Innsbruck, April 27, 1927, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich), Vol. II (January 1, 1927–September 19, 1929).Google Scholar Saller, however, also observed that this increased activity coincided with Pabst's return from a long vacation at Lake Como, in northern Italy.
71 Heimatschutz-Zeitung, Vol. I, No. 7 (05 26, 1927), p. 2Google Scholar; No. 9 (June 9, 1927), p. 2; and No. 10 (June 16, 1927), p. 1.
72 Steidle's speech aa published in ibid., No. 14 (July 14, 1927), pp. 1–6.
73 The story of these tragic events has been exhaustively told. See, for example, Gulick, , Austria from Habsburg to Hitler, Vol. I, pp. 717–771Google Scholar; Goldinger, , “Der geschichtliche Ablauf der Ereignisse in Österreich von 1918 bis 1945,” pp. 153–155Google Scholar; and Gedye, G. E. R., Betrayal in Central Europe (New York: Harper, 1939), pp. 21–28.Google Scholar
74 Saller to foreign ministry, Innsbruck, July 23, 1927, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich), Vol. II (January 1, 1927–September 19, 1929).Google Scholar See also Austria, , Stenographische Protokolle über die Sitzungen des Nationalrates, 3 Gesetzgebungsperiode, Vol. I, 07 27, 1927, pp. 223–229 and 236–238.Google Scholar
75 Interview with Pfrimer at Judenburg on June 23,1963. Pfrimer complained that Franz Winkler, the Landbund leader, tried to get him to be less intransigent. See also Rintelen, , Erinnerungen an Österreichs Weg, pp. 137–138Google Scholar; Gulick, , Austria from Habsburg to Hitler, Vol. I, p. 749Google Scholar; and Reichspost (Vienna), 07 21, 1927, p. 3.Google Scholar For the testimony of two socialists who were present at the meetings with Pfrimer in Graz on July 17, 1927, see Arbeiter-Zeitung, 09 6, 1928, p. 2.Google Scholar Franz Winkler maintained that the Styrian Heimwehr (as distinguished from the Heimatschutz) also mobilized. See his account in the Neue Freie Presse, 06 21, 1929 (morning edition), p. 6.Google Scholar See also Neue Freie Presse, 11 19, 1929 (morning edition), p. 4Google Scholar; Heimatschutz in Österreich, pp. 122–123Google Scholar; and Austria, , Stenographische Protokolle über die Sitzungen des Nationalrates, 3. Gesetzgebungsperiode, Vol. I, 07 27, 1927, pp. 213–223.Google Scholar
76 See Washburn to secretary of state (confidential), Vienna, August 31, 1927, National Archives (Washington, D. C.), Records of the State Department, No. 863.00/167. Castiglione told the American minister that Rintelen had taunted him by insisting that if his “proposal of two years ago had been adopted the 15th day of July would never have happened.”
77 Interview with Pfrimer at Judenburg on June 23, 1963. Even the sophisticated Viennese political observer Eduard Ludwig contends that Seipel did not take full advantage of his opportunity to make thorough changes. See his Österreichs Sendung im Donauraum. Die letzten Dezennien Österreichischer Innen- und Aussenpolitik (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Staatsdruckerei, 1954), p. 61.Google Scholar
78 Interview with Revertera at Helfenberg, Upper Austria, on July 22 and 23, 1963; Reichapost, 07 23, 1927, p. 2Google Scholar; and July 31, 1927, p. 9; Heimatschutz-Zeitung, Vol. I, No. 15 (07 21, 1927), p. 4Google Scholar; Heimatschutz in Österreich, p. 75Google Scholar; Langoth, Franz, Kampf um Österreich. Erinnerungen eines Politikers (Wels, Upper Austria: Verlag Welsermühl, 1951), pp. 31–33.Google Scholar
79 Deutsch, , Ein weiter Weg, p. 172.Google Scholar
80 Pertinax, [Otto Leichter], Österreich 1934 (Zürich: Europa Verlag, 1935), pp. 153–154Google Scholar; Arbeiter-Zeitung, 10 16, 1927, pp. 5–6Google Scholar; Heinz, Karl, “Nach dem 15. Juli,” Der Kampf, Vol. XX (09, 1927), p. 404.Google Scholar
81 Saller to foreign ministry, Innsbruck, July 23, 1927, Politisches Archiv des Deutschen Auswärtigen Amtes (Bonn), Abteilung II, Politik 2, No. 3 (Heimwehrorganisation in Österreich), Vol. II (January 1, 1927–September 19, 1929).Google Scholar
82 Neue Freie Presse, 07 23, 1927 (morning edition), p. 5.Google Scholar
83 Heimatschutz-Zeitung, Vol. I, No. 16 (07 28, 1927), p. 1.Google Scholar
84 Works not previously cited that bear on the developments mentioned in this and the following paragraphs are Kerekes, Lajos, Abenddämmerung einer Demokratie. Mussolini, Gömbös und die Heimwehr (Vienna: Europa Verlag, 1966)Google Scholar; Jedlicka, Ludwig, “Zur Vorgeschichte des Korneuburger Eides,” Österreich in Geschichte und Literatur, Vol. VII, No. 4 (04, 1963), pp. 146–153Google Scholar; Schweiger, Franz, “Geschichte des niederösterreichischen Heimwehr von 1928 bis 1930” (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Vienna, 1964)Google Scholar; Haag, John J., “Othmar Spann and the Politics of ‘Totality’: Corporatism in Theory and Practice” (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Rice University, 1969), especially pp. 102–111Google Scholar; Edmondson, C. Earl, “The Heimwehr and Austrian Politics, 1918–1934” (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Duke University, 1966)Google Scholar, especially Chapters III–VI; and Pauley, Bruce F., Hahnenschwanz und Hakenkreuz. Steirischer Heimatschutz und österreichischer Nationalsozialismus 1918–1998 (Vienna: Europa Verlag, 1972), pp. 47–80.Google Scholar
85 For a contrary assertion, see Jedlicka, , “The Austrian Heimwehr,” p. 134.Google Scholar See also Wandruszka, , “Österreichs politische Struktur,” pp. 364–366.Google Scholar