There's a lot of motivation here. It boils down to a two-part question: is the usage of 'prevarication' as a synonym for 'vacillation' common, acceptable, and/or preferable; and is there any reason that it might crop up particularly often in the history of Austria and Germany?
I am currently reading Max Hastings's Catastrophe 1914, which I am very much enjoying, except for this usage, which jars me. Some example quotes:
Russia's prevarications about the exact pattern of its mobilisation were almost certainly irrelevant to the European outcome.
But if German policy had vacillated earlier in July, now the march to war had attained its own momentum. In Berlin on the 29th, Falkenhayn sought to force the pace: he declared that the time for prevarication was over ….
Gallieni fumed at the prevarications of bureaucrats, who seemed incapable of adjusting from the tempo of peace to that of extreme national peril ….
Unfortunately, this book isn't previewed on Google Books, so you'll have to take my word that the surroundings make it clear that 'prevarication' here is not meant to refer to deception, but rather to what I think of as vacillation. Note particularly the second quote, where 'vacillation' is even used in the previous sentence, to describe the behaviour the time for which was over. For an example sentence with more context, and also to note that this usage is not peculiar to Hastings, see https://books.google.com/books?id=9Y0osRlmQcIC&pg=PP47#q=prevaricate:
Some officials and politicians thought that Hitler would continue to prevaricate ….
(Here you really probably will want to check the context to verify that it is not a reference to prevarication as deception, in which Hitler certainly engaged wantonly.)
To my shock, when I went to the OED to back up my distaste with this usage, I found it saying very much the contrary (http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/151057#eid112455102):
3b. To behave evasively or indecisively so as to delay action; to procrastinate. Now the usual sense.
However, a hallway survey of several colleagues produced the uniform reaction "no, that's not what it means at all!"; and I noticed that the second quote is clearly about Nazism, while the first refers to—I don't know what, but clearly some conflict involving Austria. So, I am back to the question at the beginning: is this usage really 'usual', and is there any reason that it seems to crop up so often in the history of Austria and Germany?