The Dictatorship of Many Names

In the current historical assessment of 20th-century Austria, few periods are more disputed than the five years to 1938 during which the country was ruled as a dictatorship. The fact that, even today, there is no consensus on the term used to describe the political system from 1933/1934–1938 brings this conflict into sharp focus. Left-wing historians favour “Austrofascism”, conservatives prefer the “Corporate State”. Present-day textbooks often attempt to combine these different positions, compromising with “Austrofascist Corporate State”. Debates over the name continue into the present because, ultimately, they are bound up with the question of political responsibility for the destruction of democracy, the subsequent rise of Nazism in Austria, and the seamless Anschluss (“annexation”) with Nazi Germany in 1938 this made possible.

For the House of Austrian History, it is important to present the history of this Austrian dictatorship in a way that highlights these different perspectives, while also allowing us to evaluate it from a present-day standpoint. For this reason, we propose the new term “Dollfuss-Schuschnigg Dictatorship”. This emphasises that the state was a dictatorship whose self-image and propaganda were closely linked to its two federal chancellors. In our main exhibition we show how democracy was destroyed, what were the characteristics of this dictatorship, and how it dealt with its opponents. At the same time, we have developed an interactive map that points to the differences and similarities between Austria and other dictatorships during this period. This European comparison also shows why classifying the Austrian state as “fascist” or whitewashing it as the “Corporate State” are questionable approaches.

On this page we explore the five most commonly used terms for the political system in Austria from 1933/1934 to 1938. For each we explain its meaning and use, and summarise criticisms of it, adding background information for accessibility. An interactive installation in our main exhibition, which allows visitors to make direct comparisons between the terms and discussions on them, brings a tangible dimension to the debates around terminology and historical assessment.

Meaning: This term stresses the fascist character of the ideology and places the system alongside Italian Fascism and Nazism. Emphasis is given to the construction of the dictatorship’s ideology in opposition to socialism.

Use: The word was introduced in the 1930s by opponents of the system and picked up again by political scientists in the historical debates of the 1970s. Today the term is classed as unusable by many historians, while others employ it deliberately (sometimes with lengthy justifications, sometimes as a symbol).

Criticism: The term is taken directly from the political (counter-) propaganda of the era. Today it is mostly used in politically left-wing statements and historical accounts and is considered a loaded term in historical discourse. In addition, the description disregards the undoubtedly considerable differences from Italian Fascism and from Nazism. Equating these systems also ignores the fact that political violence played a comparatively minor role in the Austrian dictatorship.

Meaning: These terms describe the state by its dictatorial leadership and the cult of personality around the chancellor. Historians use these terms in an attempt to resolve the controversial debates around the politically loaded terms of Corporate State and Austrofascism.

Use: These new terms have been used in academic contexts since the 1990s as a more neutral label for the period.

Criticism: Labelling it a government or chancellery dictatorship makes the political system supporting that dictatorship invisible. The terms fail to reference the fascist elements that influenced certain aspects of the ideology. Furthermore, these names are not clearly recognisable as a historical classification for Austria in the years 1933/1934–1938, and are therefore unsuitable for international use.

Meaning: The term “Ständestaat”, or Corporate State, was the regime’s own name for itself. “Ständestaat” ideology envisioned a “new, just” social order based on professional and economic classes—so-called corporations—and rejected political parties and parliamentary democracy. Its programme was based on a corporatist state structure laid down in the constitution of 1 May 1934. But it was never planned in detail, nor put into practice. The reference to Austria emphasises the state’s independence and its differences from Nazi Germany.

Use: In the 1930s this term was used by the regime itself. After 1945 it continued in general and academic usage. Today this label is considered not fit for purpose as an adequate description of the dictatorship from 1933/1934–1938.

Criticism: The term adopts the dictatorship’s own propaganda and is used predominantly by those with conservative political leanings. Thus it is both a loaded term because of its meaning in the 1930s and not neutral due to its later usage. Above all, it makes the ideology of the “corporatist order” the central feature of the state, even though this was never put into practice. The description also plays down the system’s dictatorial and fascist elements, or denies them completely.

Meaning: These terms name the authoritarian or dictatorial character of the system. They attempt to unite and thus neutralise the opposing positions within the debate.

Use: Since the 1970s, these attempts to sidestep the dispute have been common among scholars and in public debate.

Criticism: These terms acknowledge both political camps but perpetuate the dictatorship’s own propaganda of itself as a “Corporate State”. The influence of fascist ideology is minimised and the term “authoritarian” avoids a clear statement that this was a dictatorship.

Meaning: Above all, this term emphasises the attack on and elimination of democracy. It develops the term “Chancellery Dictatorship” further and makes the differences to Nazism and Italian Fascism visible. It acts as a prompt for further historical discussion.

Use: Since the 2000s, new academic studies have proposed the term “Dollfuss-Schuschnigg regime” as a way out of the controversy. For its opening exhibition, the museum was searching for a term that was understandable and clear, and chose to adapt this label to include the reference to dictatorship.

Criticism: The term conceals the fascist elements within the dictatorship’s ideology and reduces it to the figures of the two chancellors. In addition, the term overlooks what were often considerable differences between the governments of Dollfuss and Schuschnigg.

Development: Jennifer Carvill-Schellenbacher, Georg Hoffmann, Monika Sommer, Heidemarie Uhl

Editing and additions in 2021: Stefan Benedik

Translation: Joanna White

For taking part in discussions, we would like to thank: Aleida Assmann, Dieter A. Binder, John W. Boyer, Helmut Konrad, Wolfgang Maderthaner, Oliver Rathkolb, Dirk Rupnow, Franz Schausberger, Helmut Wohnout