ABSTRACT
Hagspiel succeeds brilliantly in tackling a sensitive subject with admirable detachment and objectivity—a rare achievement in an age of ideological advocacy and political correctness. Aside from a gratuitous swipe at Gerhard Botz for “monopolizing” the study of Austrian Nazism, Hagspiel’s account is exceptionally fair, straightforward, and non-ideological. Hagspiel pays no attention to the pathbreaking research of Marlis Steinert and Ian Kershaw on the German scene, studies absolutely essential to any understanding of the Ostmark as an integral part of Hitler’s Reich. In contrast to other historians, Hagspiel spends little time examining the Anschluss movement or castigating the Christian Corporative regime for its many failures. Given Hitler’s aggressive aims, Hagspiel sees German annexation as virtually inevitable. He condemns Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg for diplomatic ineptitude, conjecturing that greater patience might have kept the Führer at bay until a favorable change occurred in the international climate.
