The reform of the constitution, which came to fruition on December 7, 1929, did not satisfy anyone: a sense of disappointment, of unease, which was essentially of a moral nature, remained. In the economic field, Austria had made considerable progress since 1923, albeit with the help of foreign capital; in the moral field, on the other hand, she had no faith in herself, in her future as a historical and state individuality. Here was the psychological genesis of the favor accorded by many to the idea of the Anschluss: in the first place, by the German-nationals, frankly Pan-Germanists; then by the Social Democrats, whose attitude in this regard was subject to ups and downs, depending on the changing fortunes of the Social Democrats in the neighboring Reich. The same Christian-social party, which had nevertheless remained the most purely Austrian party, did not yet rise up to the univocal affirmation of an Austrian patriotism, and it too ended, even if not fully convinced, by letting itself be towed in the wake of the ‘ Anschluss. In the Heimwehren which, as opposed to Schutzbund republican, mainly recruited from the socialist proletariat and the urban petty bourgeoisie, they do not have a typical classist physiognomy and are, generically, for the principles of order and authority and practically alongside the action of the Christian-social party, there is the possibility, in germ, that a somewhat clearer awareness of the individuality, not only state but national, of Austria will develop. In fact, Austria, which recognized itself as a distinct entity, with its own tradition and its own mission, under the aegis of the Habsburgs, now finds it difficult, after the fall of that dynasty, to rebuild an individuality, a life, a future; it would require another fabric of traditions, struggles, affirmations, which the young republic did not have.
But the Heimwehren are going through a period of crisis deriving mainly from the duplicity of the tendencies and direction of this movement: on the one hand Steidle with the Heimwehren of Tyrol, on the other Pfrimer, with those of Styria; and both will have, in the autumn of 1930, to give way to the new single leader, the young prince of Starhemberg (see App.). And in the meantime, Chancellor Schober has to juggle, internally, against the deaf fight waged on him by Msgr. Seipel, and in relations with foreign countries. Here, however, he could boast real successes: in January 1930, at the reparation conference in The Hague, he obtained that all financial obligations deriving from the Treaty of Saint-Germain were declared extinct; on February 6, 1930 he signed a treaty of friendship and conciliation and a judicial regulation with the Italian government. But on September 25, 1930, Schober had to resign, and give way to a combination of Christian-social and Heimwehren, to the exclusion of the agrarians and the German-nationals; Vaugoin Chancellor with Seipel (Foreign) and Starhemberg.
In the elections of November 1930 the parties maintained their positions on the whole: but then the National Socialists appeared on the scene of Austrian political life. Indeed, scattered cores of followers and sympathizers had already existed for some time: but only now, in connection with the development of Nazism in Germany, does Austrian Nazism also take on a more precise party configuration and tactics and begin to strengthen its cadres. It must necessarily interfere with the tendencies of the German nationals and the Heimwehren. With the former he had in common the pan-German and racist program which the Anschluss implied: but the German-nationals conceived it as the union of all Germans in a state governed according to the principles and ideals of the liberals and democrats of 1848. With the Heimwehren the Nazis shared the anti-Marxist principles: but while those, in essence, stopped at a form of Catholic bourgeois conservatism, the Austrian Nazis were steeped in revolutionism.
Following the outcome of the elections, an Ender cabinet, Chancellor, Schober (Foreign) and Winkler was formed in December 1930; that is, after only three months, he returned to the point of the last Schober cabinet, which now presented himself as an exponent of a bloc that included the agrarians, the German-nationals and minor groups of economic and professional organizations of the middle class; the participation and benevolent assistance of the Christian Socialists was ensured by the presence of Chancellor Ender. Defeats felt the Heimwehren; Starhemberg saw himself abandoned by many followers, and in May 1931 he withdrew from the leadership of the Heimwehren giving way to Pfrimer, in a difficult moment also in the international position of Austria. After secret negotiations, Customs union) between Austria and Germany. When, a few days later, the protocol was known, international political circles caused a stir, because it was clear that the customs union would be the prelude to political union. The matter was referred to the League of Nations for consideration; then, for the juridical examination, to the court of the Hague, which on 5 September 1931 declared the project of customs union incompatible with the international commitments undertaken by Austria. A few days later, on 13 September 1931, a part of the Heimwehren, led by Pfrimer, attempted a failed coup; Starhemberg resumed leadership of the movement in November, excluding any collaboration with the Nazis. On the other hand, the German-nationals, hitherto supported by the government, leaned towards the National Socialists; Schober, Zollunion, left the government and Buresch reshuffled the cabinet (January 1932). But this second Buresch cabinet had a short life and after a difficult crisis, which lasted two weeks, E. Dolfuss (see App.) Managed (May 1932) to compose the ministry, with the support of the Haimatblock (i.e. the legalitarian and collaborative Heimwehren of the Prince of Starhemberg) and of the Landbund (that is, of the agrarians, for which Winkler took on the vice-chancellorship). Faced with the extremely difficult situation of the hour – the bloody clashes of the Heimwehren began not only with the Social Democrats, but also with the National Socialists – Dollfuss referred to an old law of the monarchy, enacted in the time of the world war and then fallen into desuetude; by virtue of it, he began to issue ordinances not only in economic matters – to these, strictly speaking, the exhumed law referred – but also in matters of public order, severely disturbed by the warlike bias of the parties. The parliament was still open, but Dollfuss vigorously proceeded on the path taken, when the rise to power of the Nazis in Germany and the great desire to follow their example that the Nazis of Austria took, it pushed him to go beyond, perhaps, his primitive program. The urgency of the Nazi movement on the one hand, and on the other the danger that the Social Democrats and other left-wing parties would, with their coup d’état, prevent the Nazis, became a reason for life for the median parties on which, in essence, he supported Dollfuss, to make concessions to the Heimwehren program and to implement with them, but without capitulating to them, the strong government outside parties. The successive resignations of the three presidents of the Nationalrat, for procedural reasons during a discussion, gave Dollfuss the opportunity to suspend parliamentary work indefinitely. March 4, 1933 marked the end of parliamentary rule in Austria. On March 31, 1933, it was dissolved strong government outside parties. The successive resignations of the three presidents of the Nationalrat, for procedural reasons during a discussion, gave Dollfuss the opportunity to suspend parliamentary work indefinitely. March 4, 1933 marked the end of parliamentary rule in Austria. On March 31, 1933, it was dissolved strong government outside parties. The successive resignations of the three presidents of the Nationalrat, for procedural reasons during a discussion, gave Dollfuss the opportunity to suspend parliamentary work indefinitely. March 4, 1933 marked the end of parliamentary rule in Austria. On March 31, 1933, it was dissolvedRepublican Schutzbund, body in the hands of the Social Democrats. Affected the Social Democrats, the Nazis remained: in Rome, between 9 and 12 April 1933, Dollfuss, the German vice-chancellor von Papen and the president of the Prussian government Göring met and tried to smooth the tips, putting them in direct contact – hopes Mussolini – the leaders of German and Austrian politics. Taking advantage of the favorable psychological moment, Dollfuss tried to revive an Austrian patriotic sentiment: on May 13, 1933, the day on which the 250th anniversary of the liberation of Vienna from the Turks was celebrated, Dollfuss constituted the Vaterländische Front, a new movement rather than a new party, open to those who had faith in the independence of Austria. Then, in the face of the intensified Nazi offensive, on 19 June 1933 Dollfuss dissolved the Nazi party. And in the meantime he could bring the economic agreements with Hungary to a good point; reconfirm Italian friendship and collaboration (Riccione meeting 19-20 August 1933); to obtain that the contingent of regular armed forces be increased for internal needs. But after a few months the agrarians, suspicious of the authoritarian tendencies of the Heimwehren, left the movement and gave life to another front: the Nationalständische Front (September 17). It was, in essence, the resurrection of the Schober block, Chief Winkler. Faced with this principle of splitting, Dollfuss recomposed the ministry and, to highlight its independence from the parties, excluded its leaders such as Winkler and Vaugoin, also assumed the delicate department of National Security and entrusted the vice-chancellorship to Fey. A few months later, in February. 1934, there was a violent clash between the Dollfuss government and the Social Democrats: for four days (12-15 February 1934) Austria was bloodied by a real civil war: in the end the insurrection was won and the most seriously compromised leaders repaired in Czechoslovakia. But, once Social Democracy had been bent by force, the Nazis remained, and they resumed their action with greater intensity: attacks on people, to railway lines, bridges, power plants. Italy, France and England published (February 17) a declaration in which they reaffirmed the need to maintain the independence and integrity of Austria in accordance with the treaties. On March 17, 1934, Mussolini, Dollfuss and Gömbös signed three protocols in Rome; the Italian, Austrian and Hungarian governments established in the first protocol to carry out a concerted policy, and to consult for this purpose if at least one of them deemed it necessary; in the other two protocols the economic relations between the two countries were regulated.
