Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Myth of Austria as Nazi Victim, the Emigrants and the Discipline of Exile Studies

2003; Modern Humanities Research Association; Volume: 11; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1353/aus.2003.0024

2222-4262

Sonja Niederacher,

European history and politics

The Myth ofAustria asNazi Victim, the Emigrants and theDiscipline ofExile Studies SONJA NIEDERACHER UniversityofVienna I The myth that Austria was a victim of Hitler's Germany and of National Socialism brought with it a categorical rejection of the proposition that the country bore a share of the responsibility for the crimes of that regime. In this article I would like to explore connections between one group of victims ? the emigrants ? and the construction of the victim myth. In addition, I should like to explore the relationship between Austrian exile studies, a discipline largely founded and sustained, especially in its early years, by re?migr?s, and the creation and evolution of the myth of victimhood. The premises for this discussion are threefold. First, the ideas behind the myth of victimhood were already being formulated in various Austrian exile organizations even before theMoscow Declaration of 1943. Above all the exile press made a point of depicting Austria as being subject, against itswill, to foreign rule. Contributors declared their loyalty to an independent national identity, and programmes for the reorganization of the country after its liberation were formulated. The idealization of Austria also highlights continuities with the 'St?ndestaat' [Corporate State], insofar as, after 1933, Austrian patriots promoted the idea of a 'second German state'.1 Those exiles who were preparing for the rebuilding of democratic structures after the defeat of National Socialism, and who viewed emigration as a temporary situation that would end with their return, were to be bitterly disappointed in 1945, as official bodies made no efforts to bring back those who had been driven out. Those who dared to return nonetheless ? often not until decades later ? found themselves confronted, amongst other things, with the paradoxical accusation that they had deserted Austria. Only from the 1970s onwards was exile studies able to establish itself, not only as an academic discipline but also by means of cultural activities, and thereby 1 'Second German state' is the formulation used in the July Agreement of 11 July 1936 between Kurt Schuschnigg and Franz von Papen, in which, amongst other issues, it was established that Austria would respect German interests. SONJA NIEDERAGHER l5 provide a counterbalance to such insinuations and to the disregard of those who had been forced into exile. My second premise is that the discipline of exile studies demonstrates continuities with the patriotic idealization ofAustria that had begun in exile and with the official consolidation ofAustria's victim status in the post-war period. Since dissociation from Germany was an essential part of Austrian patriotism after 1945, all forms of patriotic argumentation served to support themyth. The commitment to preserving Austrian culture in exile, as well as the journalistic campaign fought by intellectuals against National Socialism and in support of Austria's liberation, were constant themes in exile studies of the 1970s and 80s, and provided the discipline with moral legitimation. Consequently, Austria's victim status was barely questioned; scholars attempted instead to accommodate themselves within the frame work provided by existing definitions of victimhood. Mirroring the narrowly defined concept of victimhood in post-war Austria, exile studies focused exclusively on a small group of male political activists and prominent intellectuals. Only when the focus was broadened to include other groups of exiles, and in particular when itwas realized that Jews were beginning to define themselves as a victim group, did a relativization of this perspective finally come about. Third, it is important to consider Austria's discourse of victimhood against the background of its interpretation ofNational Socialism and to be aware that the categorization of victim groups was governed by lines of argumenta tion developed with regard to both domestic and foreign policy. The victim status of Jews was itself subject to modification, and the Jewish self perception that they were amongst the principal victims of Nazi rule was only formed in the 1960s.2 This consciousness, which originated primarily in theUnited States, influenced theAmerican attitude towards President Kurt Waldheim in 1986 as well as 'class actions' brought in the 1990s by the American courts against the Republic of Austria and Austrian companies that had used forced or slave labour or profited from the expropriation of Jews. These external...