Was the Austrian right-wing as unreconciled to the loss of the monarchy after WWI as the German right-wing was?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,013
SoCal
#1
After the German Revolution occurred in 1918-1919 and resulted in the installation of a republic in Germany, a large part of the German right-wing appears to have never reconciled themselves to the new German republic and instead longed for a restoration of the German monarchy (or, after Hitler's rise to power, for a powerful Kaiser-like Fuhrer). Was the same also true for the Austrian right-wing in the interwar era? Or was the Austrian right-wing much more reconciled to the end of the Hapsburg monarchy and to the installation of a new Austrian republic (even if they hoped to eventually unite with Germany into a larger Greater German republic)?

Does anyone here have any information in regards to this?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,349
#2
After the German Revolution occurred in 1918-1919 and resulted in the installation of a republic in Germany, a large part of the German right-wing appears to have never reconciled themselves to the new German republic and instead longed for a restoration of the German monarchy (or, after Hitler's rise to power, for a powerful Kaiser-like Fuhrer). Was the same also true for the Austrian right-wing in the interwar era? Or was the Austrian right-wing much more reconciled to the end of the Hapsburg monarchy and to the installation of a new Austrian republic (even if they hoped to eventually unite with Germany into a larger Greater German republic)?
The German Right wing hated the wiemar republic and certianly wanted to kill it.

But longing for the Monarchy simply isn't right. Well in the sense they had very little attachment to the Kaiser or his family. They knew they hated the Rpeublic but there was very little real idea of what they wanted to replace it, in part it made Hitler's job easier he knew what he wanted, it's hard to get somewhere if you don;t know where it is.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,013
SoCal
#3
The German Right wing hated the wiemar republic and certianly wanted to kill it.

But longing for the Monarchy simply isn't right. Well in the sense they had very little attachment to the Kaiser or his family. They knew they hated the Rpeublic but there was very little real idea of what they wanted to replace it, in part it made Hitler's job easier he knew what he wanted, it's hard to get somewhere if you don;t know where it is.
That makes sense. If anything, this suggests that the only value that a German Kaiser would have had to them was as a figurehead to give a post-republican German regime more legitimacy in the eyes of the German people (at least the conservative ones), correct?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,013
SoCal
#4
Also, Yes, Hitler does appear to have served a similar purpose at the start of his rule--specifically with him being supposed to be window dressing (to give the new German government more legitimacy in the eyes of the German people) while the traditional German conservatives were hoping to run the show themselves. Of course, it ultimately didn't work out that way--which is a good example of the law of unintended consequences.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,013
SoCal
#5
As for interwar Austria, was there a lot of hatred among Austrian conservatives for the new Austrian republic?

Also, as a side question, was there a stab in the back myth in post-WWI Austria like there was in post-WWI Germany?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,349
#6
That makes sense. If anything, this suggests that the only value that a German Kaiser would have had to them was as a figurehead to give a post-republican German regime more legitimacy in the eyes of the German people (at least the conservative ones), correct?
Hindenberg problably had much more personal following/respect/aura than the Kaiser, the army more popualr regarded initutition than the Monarchy. There were monarchists, but not a strong or well supported or cohenerent movement, (and they probalay did not want Kiaser Bill)
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,013
SoCal
#7
Hindenberg problably had much more personal following/respect/aura than the Kaiser, the army more popualr regarded initutition than the Monarchy. There were monarchists, but not a strong or well supported or cohenerent movement, (and they probalay did not want Kiaser Bill)
So, the idea of a Hohenzollern restoration in the early 1930s was only seriously considered because the popular Hindenburg was open to it?

As for German monarchists, who was their ideal candidate for the new German Kaiser in the event of a monarchical restoration? Kaiser Bill's eldest grandson?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,349
#8
Also, Yes, Hitler does appear to have served a similar purpose at the start of his rule--specifically with him being supposed to be window dressing (to give the new German government more legitimacy in the eyes of the German people) while the traditional German conservatives were hoping to run the show themselves. Of course, it ultimately didn't work out that way--which is a good example of the law of unintended consequences.
German consevratives, and the Army had a low opinion and politics and politicans and did not see as a worthwhile pastime/career as politicans and dmoecarcy were depsised, but where do your leadership came from? It's absence of unifying ideas, the RIght Wing knew what they did not want and who they hated, But they did not reallay have much idea about Who and what sort of consitutional set up they wanted. Scleiecher was the "political" General, he did get donw and dirty but he wasn't that good at it, and was quite the deviseive figure within the Army.

I read somewhere (I cannot recall where) that some vague plan of the Nazi is the early 1930s was to install a Hapsberg as pawn in Austria. Though I doubt it was ever a serious scheme.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,013
SoCal
#10
My eyes hurt when I read things like Hapsburg, wiemar republic, Hindenberg, Kiaser, Scleiecher or Hapsberg.
Hapsburg is accurate. The rest, though, is misspelled. That said, though, I tend to simply ignore pugsville's misspellings due to the fact that I tend to understand him anyway and due to the fact that some people might simply not be very good spellers. It's not like pugsville is writing a formal academic paper or anything like that.
 
Likes: Edratman

Similar History Discussions