Why Did the USSR Leave Austria in 1955?
rhino
other words, Austria was not divided into the same sort of occupation zones
as Germany.
The USSR had the vast forces of the Red Army at its disposal after WWII and
occupied much of Eastern Europe, including Austria. Yet it chose to leave
Austria voluntarily in 1955 while continuing to occupy several other
countries.
Why did the USSR leave Austria? After all, it was the birthplace of the man,
Hitler, who had provoked World War II and the worst war in human history.
Roughly half of all the victims of that war were Soviet citizens. Although
there had been opposition in Austria to the Anscluss, the joining of Germany
and Austria in 1938, there had also been widespread support for Hitler and
Nazism in Austria.
Of all the countries to leave to its own devices, it seems to me that
Austria would have been one that the USSR would have preferred to keep a
very close eye on, via occupation.
Can anyone fill me in on what inspired the end of the Soviet occupation of
Austria?
--
Rhino
Don Phillipson
news:g9u3hl$35h$1...@news.datemas.de...
> If I am not mistaken, Austria was occupied solely by the USSR after WWII.
In
> other words, Austria was not divided into the same sort of occupation
zones
> as Germany.
Error: just like Germany, Austria was divided into four occupation
zones and the capital also into four zones (British, American, French,
Russian) but policed by unique 4-man squads, patrolled by one man
each of the military police of each occupying power (as pictured in
the fictional film The Third Man.)
> USSR . . . chose to leave
> Austria voluntarily in 1955 while continuing to occupy several other
countries.
> Why did the USSR leave Austria?
At this date:
1. Stalin was dead and after
(2. posthumous anti-police state protests notably
in East Germany)
3. the USSR leadership wanted to show itself willing to
negotiate peacefully in ways Stalin had not been.
4a. There was by 1955 a peace treat between the USA
(on behalf of all Allies) and Japan, which had been
reconstituted under a US-shaped constitution.
4b. Occupied Germany (four national zones) hardened
in 1949 into two rival states, DDR and BRD. There was
no prospect in sight of either any WW2 occupying power
negotiating unilaterally a peace treaty with both Germanies:
there was similarly no prospect of the four occupying
powers agreeing on anything (cf. Berlin Blockade 1947 etc.)
5. But Austria seemed to be different, not tainted by
the DDR/BRD rivalry, and of no strategic significance,
thus a good trial for Khrushchev's policy of "thawing"
diplomatic relations with the NATO powers (and without
upsetting the DDR or Poland, then the most volatile and
dangerous satellite states.)
Because Austria had been reorganized on the 1919 model
(not an empire as before WW1, not as a dependent province of the
Third Reich as from 1938) it was a small and safe sphere for
agreement between the USSR and the other occupation
powers. Cf. also the first Geneva "Atoms for Peace"
conference held also in 1955, an American initiative
for detente, cf. also artistic visits (Glenn Gould in Moscow 1957,
Bolshoi Ballet in London about then, etc.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Bisquik
Hi Rhino,
Austria was broken up into four occupation zones after WWII. I am guessing
Stalin's death in 1953 probably had a lot to do with Austria gaining
independence. In the treaty that granted independence (or maybe I should say
'statehood') the Austrians were not allowed to join Germany again and
fascist political parties were outlawed.
Try a Google search for the "Austrian State Treaty" and you should find some
good information.
Take care,
-Bisquik
mike
> If I am not mistaken, Austria was occupied solely by the USSR after WWII. In
> other words, Austria was not divided into the same sort of occupation zones
> as Germany.
nope, split into quarters just like Germany
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Austria_1945-55.png
> Can anyone fill me in on what inspired the end of the Soviet occupation of
> Austria?
Austria was going to be neutral. And unlike East Germany, Eastern
Austria would not provide a good springboard to invade western Europe,
unlike E. Germany and the North German Plain and the Fulda Gap
Fighting up the Danube River Valley just wasn't a good an option.
**
mike
**
jussi....@faf.mil.fi
> Can anyone fill me in on what inspired the end of the Soviet occupation of
> Austria?
Others have already mentioned that the Soviets didn't actually occupy
Austria alone. But then again, one could still ask why didn't the
Soviets attempt to use their advantage as the foremost occupation
power and turn Austria into a Soviet satellite? Or, for that matter,
why didn't Austria end up divided in a similar manner as Germany?
The answer is strategic. A neutral Austria former a convenient barrier
preventing a potential link between the Western forces in Italy and
Germany. Thus, a neutral Austria was very much in the Soviet strategic
interests.
Cheers,
J. J.
WaltBJ
capitalistic society upon Soviet soldiers who have to return
home . . ."how you gonna keep them on the farm after they've seen -
Munich?"
Walt BJ
jussi....@faf.mil.fi
I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest here. Are you trying to
propose that one reason why the Soviets left Austria was because it
was a "successful capitalist society", and thus posed some kind of a
risk of demoralizing the Soviet soldiers who were stationed there?
By that reasoning, why didn't the Soviets leave East Germany as well?
And why on earth did they choose to _return_ to Czechoslovakia?
So, I don't think that the factor you mention played any part at all.
As noted, there were other, solid reasons why leaving Austria made
sense.
Also, the problem that you mentioned was historically solved in a very
simple fashion. An occupied capitalist society could always be looted
and its economy sovietized; and the soldiers who had been exposed to
foreign influence could be incarcerated in a GULAG.
... although even then, the effects of foreign exposure were visible
in the USSR back in 1946-1947. There are contemporary descriptions of
how the streets of the Soviet cities were filled with returning Red
Army veterans, both soldiers and officers, selling stuff that they had
looted from Germany or bought from their American colleagues. The semi-
legalized black market was complete when the soldiers were followed by
vendors, beggars, colporteurs, street fiddlers and prostitutes; a
perfectly normal phenomenon in a country just ravaged by years of
warfare, and where the population was more or less forced to engage in
all sorts of petty commerce in order to survive. And the totalitarian
government was ready to tacitly allow it, for the time being.
In this respect, the post-war USSR wasn't much different from the post-
war Europe in general. Or, for that matter, one could also compare the
post-war USSR of 1946-1947 with the post-Soviet _Russia_ in 1992-1994.
Cheers,
J. J.
geo...@ankerstein.org
> If I am not mistaken, Austria was occupied solely by the USSR after WWII. In
> other words, Austria was not divided into the same sort of occupation zones
> as Germany.
Not really true. Large parts of western Austria were still under the
NAZI forces.
The Allied Armies were at the outskirts of Dresden. Look at a map of
the "lines"
on May 8, 1945.
The US Army was in Bavaria and would have easily entered Austria and
captured
Linz and Salzburg. The Yalta Agreement set up occupation zones, and
if the
USSR had insisted on all of Austria, then the US and UK might not have
withdrawn
from the large areas they held in the future USSR occupation zone.
Remember,
FDR was dead; Truman was the president of the USA.
GFH
Bill Shatzer
-snip-
> The US Army was in Bavaria and would have easily entered Austria and
> captured Linz and Salzburg.
Salzburg was captured without much opposition by the 3rd US Infantry
Division on May 4, 1945 while Linz fell to the 26th US Infantry division
on the same day.
Not only could they have easily entered Austria and captured Salzburg
and Linz, they actually did so before the final German surrender.
Cheers,
WaltBJ
> On 12 syys, 02:54, WaltBJ <waltb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > One other factor -the effect of a tour in a pretty successful capitalistic society upon Soviet
> > soldiers who have to return home . . ."how you gonna keep them on the farm after they've seen
> > - Munich?"
>
> I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest here. Are you trying to
> propose that one reason why the Soviets left Austria was because it
> was a "successful capitalist society", and thus posed some kind of a
> risk of demoralizing the Soviet soldiers who were stationed there?
>
> By that reasoning, why didn't the Soviets leave East Germany as well?
> And why on earth did they choose to _return_ to Czechoslovakia?
East Germany was firmly in the hands of the German Communist Party and
still recovering from the ravaging of the Red Army. No capitalist
attractions there for some years. However, as the DDR recovered from
the war and its economy and standard of living improved, the Soviet
soldiers stationed therein started having disciplinary problems. By
1970 there were numerous cases of desertion despite the draconian
punishment for that crime. I was in Berlin at the time and cognizant
of that.
As for the "Prague Spring', the USSR invaded to 'stop the rot'. BTW,
I should think their motivation would be obvious.
As PT Barnum said, "You can fool all of the people some of the
time . . ."
Walt BJ
geo...@ankerstein.org
> geor...@ankerstein.org wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> > The US Army was in Bavaria and would have easily entered Austria and
> > captured Linz and Salzburg.
>
> Salzburg was captured without much opposition by the 3rd US Infantry
> Division on May 4, 1945 while Linz fell to the 26th US Infantry division
> on the same day.
I know that the coin museum in Salzburg was looted by US troops, so
that
they were there first is easy to prove. Who took what loot is "best
evidence".
GFH
jussi....@faf.mil.fi
> As for the "Prague Spring', the USSR invaded to 'stop the rot'. BTW,
> I should think their motivation would be obvious.
I wasn't speaking of the Prague Spring. When I spoke of "Soviets
returning to Czechoslovakia", I was speaking of the communist takeover
of Czechoslovakia in 1948.
Moreover, I don't understand why you were speaking of Soviet soldiers
returning from Munich in that first message of yours. The city in
question is Germany, not in Austria, and was part of the American
occupation zone.
Cheers,
J. J.
Michael Kuettner
After the departure of the occupation forces, the Austrian communist party
(KPOe) tried to take over the state by means of a general strike.
They failed, but it was a close thing.
As our communists were strictly in line with Moscow until the fall of the
Iron Curtain, it is rather implausible that they tried to do so without an
OK from Moscow.
The Kreml was in a win-win situation :
(a) either the takeover succeeds and he has another Soviet Republic without
intervening
or
(b) he has an alternative to the Fulda gap plus a neutral country where the Iron
Curtain
was rather relaxed - many KGB agents went West via Austria. And many deals were
done here.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner