From Prejudice to Persecution: A History of Austrian Anti-Semitism (41 page)

Read From Prejudice to Persecution: A History of Austrian Anti-Semitism Online

Authors: Bruce F. Pauley

Tags: #History, #Jewish, #Europe, #Austria & Hungary, #Social Science, #Anthropology, #Cultural, #Discrimination & Race Relations, #test

BOOK: From Prejudice to Persecution: A History of Austrian Anti-Semitism
6.62Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub

 

Page 164

strong because of their leading role in the Social Democratic Party. The best solution to these problems was to recognize the Jews as a separate nation with national autonomy, including their own schools, something the Zionists were already demanding. If this proved unacceptable to the majority of Jews, they could be granted proportional representation in Austria's political, cultural, and educational institutions. In this he agreed in principle with many points made by Kunschak in his unsuccessful legislative proposal of 1919. He also agreed with Kunschak that Jews did not cease to be Jews simply by leaving the Jewish Community. On the other hand, he differed from both Kunschak and Bichlmair in believing that Jews ceased to be Jews once they converted to Christianity.

39

Although Seipel gave some indication of becoming more alarmed about Jews in three death-bed interviews he gave in 1932, on the whole Austrian Jews appear to have held him in high esteem if only because his antiSemitism was so much more moderate than that of many other Austrian politicians. The Zionist
Wiener Morgenzeitung
, which naturally would have approved of Seipel's call for separate Jewish schools, remarked editorially in June 1924, shortly after an unsuccessful attempt on his life had failed, that the chancellor had never acted as a blind zealot of the church and had given no inflammatory speeches against Jews. He had also rejected "active" antiSemitism. Likewise, the assimilationist
Wahrheit
, in an obituary written in August 1932, said that the former chancellor had treated Jews fairly, particularly on religious questions. The paper criticized him only for having tolerated the anti-Semitic programs of the Christian Social Party and for having sympathized with the "student nations" academic reform of 1930. In general, however, the paper said that Austrian Jews would remember him as an honorable man, a point also made by Seipel's long-time political foe, Otto Bauer, in a famous parliamentary tribute made immediately after the former chancellor's death.
40
Emmerich Czermak and the Pro-Zionists
Leopold Kunschak and Ignaz Seipel were not the only Catholics to favor the dissimilation of Jews from Austrian society. The idea was revived by a former minister of education, leader of the Sudeten Germans in Austria, and prominent Christian Social politician, Emmerich Czermak. Together with a well-known Zionist author, Oskar Karbach, Czermak published in 1933 a lengthy proposal for the segregation of Jews entitled
Ordnung in der judenfrage: Verständigung mit dem Judentum?
(
Order in the Jewish Question: An Under-

 

Page 165
Emmerich Czermak, chairman of the Christian Social Party in 1934 and author of
Order in the Jewish Question
(
Ordnung in der Judenfrage
). Austrian National
Library Picture Archive. "Assimilation has failed; in the middle of the host people
the Jews, with their equal rights, remain an alien body," Czermak asserted.
"A special minority law must be created."

 

Page 166

standing with Jewry
?). Although little in the book was really new, it needs to be examined here in some detail if only because Czermak was in charge of "solving the Jewish problem" for the Christian Social Party,

41
and because he became chairman of the party only a few weeks after the book's publication. The book itself also evoked an enormous public response.

The CzermakKarbach proposal was a radical solution to the "Jewish problem"at least as measured by contemporary Austrian standards though not by the standards of Nazi Germanyexpressed in disarmingly moderate language. "Any solution based on the principle that one race [was] more valuable than another [was] rejected," as was the Old Testament law of revenge. Both Jews and gentiles had to have an opportunity to earn a living and mutual hatred had to be eliminated. However, the proposal was also based on the principle that the mixing of Jews and Germans had been bad for both people. The authors declared that the liberal, socialist, Bolshevik Jewry of their day was degenerate. This was also clear to Jews who regarded themselves as Jewish nationalists.
42
In his section of the book Czermak argued that when Christians fell away from their ancient laws of an ordered
Volksgemeinschaft
(people's community), Jews increasingly began to influence the social life of different peoples. From liberalism, which had been influenced by Jews, came all the other ideologies, such as humanism and pacifism. But they all remained rigid and soulless because they were all far removed from the concept of brotherly love. Moreover, only a few people had benefited from the growth of material things that liberalism helped bring about. Liberalism had ended with a complete moral collapse. Liberalism as a political party was destroyed; the only remains of it could be found in assimilated Jewry. The majority of the assimilated Jews, according to Czermak, had moved with "flying colors" into the Marxist camp. Even more decisively than liberalism, Marxism tried to build an international world. It made religion not just a private matter but tried to exterminate it altogether. Bolshevism was also the most radical advocate of assimilation and for this reason was fought, among others, by Jewish nationalists.
43
Despite the political and material influence of the Jewish spirit in all aspects of modern life, the Jewish people, Czermak maintained, were threatened with complete national disintegration. They could only be saved by reversing assimilation and undergoing a religious revival. Assimilation had failed; even most Jews recognized this. A Jew could not become a member of another nationality simply by leaving Judaism if the host people rejected him. Czermak thought that the current hatred of Jews was regrettable, but equally untenable was the senseless excitement that Jews expressed over not being able to hang

 

Page 167

on to all the economic and intellectual positions they had won almost without a fight.

44

Czermark thought that Palestine offered a partial solution to the Jewish question, but it was not large enough to hold even the 560,000 Jews of Germany. The best solution was to place Jews under a special minority law that would regulate their economic and social activities within the host nationality in such a way that all causes of hatred would be removed. In economic affairs there was to be a thoughtfully conceived boundary between Jews and gentiles. In cultural matters Jews would have been able to speak only as guests. If this solution were followed, Jews would return to the original conservative character that they had abandoned. Christians demanded only that Jews be loyal to the state; the leadership of the state would remain exclusively in Christian hands.
45
In his second and shorter section of the book, Oskar Karbach pointed out that Nazi Germany regarded Jews as an enemy power that had to be conquered, not reformed. Positive norms for Jews to follow were not even being discussed. Karbach thought that if there were such guidelines there would be no occasion for continued enmity. Arguments over Jewish refugees could be avoided by authoritarian states if such positive reforms were implemented. No solution to the Jewish question could be found if one tried to solve it in a piecemeal way. Dissimilation alone would be a catastrophe for the Jews. The German people of Austria would have to convince the Jews that a reform would lead to a lasting and equitable involvement in the state.
46
The reaction to
Ordnung in der Judenfrage
was swift, intense, and predictable. Not surprisingly, most Jewish and philoSemitic newspapers reacted scornfully to the book's publication. The assimilationist newspaper,
Die Wahrheit
, pointed out the obvious parallels between the CzermakKarbach proposal and laws that had already been enacted in Nazi Germany. The newspaper said that Jews were willing to negotiate a change in the status quo but would never voluntarily surrender their equal rights.
47
Speaking for mainstream Zionists,
Die Stimme
noted that Czermak wanted to implement a numerus clausus in areas where Jews were overrepresented, but did not support any changes where Jews were underrepresented, as, for example, in the civil service.
Jüdische Front
, representing Jewish war veterans, said that Czermak mentioned only Jews who had had a harmful effect on society and not those who had played a positive role.
Der jüdische Arbeiter
, the organ of working-class Zionist Jews in the Poale Zion, thought that Czermak's proposal would deny Jews equal rights.
48
Irene Harand, the editor of the philoSemitic newspaper
Gerechtigkeit
, was

 

Page 168

also not fooled by Czermak's polite language. She saw nothing new in the book; what Czermak was proposing amounted to exceptional laws for Jews. Forcing Jews to say that they belonged to a separate
Volk
and then segregating them from German-Austrians would not win Austria the sympathy of foreigners. She would not reject Czermak and doubt his loyalty to Austria simply because he had a Czech name.

49

Anti-Semitic publications, both Catholic and nationalist, were enthusiastic about the new book by Czermak and Karbach. Josef Eberle in
Schönere Zukunft
warmly recommended the book to his readers after summarizing its contents. The violently anti-Semitic and thinly disguised Nazi newspaper,
Der Stürmer
, thought the book "could be taken seriously," especially because Czermak was a leading member of the Christian Social Party.
50
Roman Catholics and Nazi AntiSemitism
The publication of
Ordnung in der Judenfrage
was part of a larger effort by Roman Catholics in Austria to respond to the challenge confronting them by the revived Austrian Nazi Party, which had won nearly 17 percent of the vote in local and provincial elections held in several parts of Austria in April 1932. In July of the same year the German Nazis had garnered a spectacular 37.4 percent of the vote in national parliamentary elections. After Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in January 1933 Austrian Nazis were supremely confident that they, too, would soon be in power.
51
A major part of the appeal of the Austrian Nazis was their unscrupulous anti-Semitic propaganda, which threatened to attract many young Catholics and Christian Socials. AntiSemitism was a major part of the Christian Social Weltanschauung from the very beginning. Even though it became less important after 1922, it remained a significant integrating factor in the heterogeneous party. Indeed, there had to be serious doubts in the minds of the party's leaders whether the party could survive if denied this political weapon. Members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy were anxious to convince young people that the church had been anti-Semitic centuries before anyone had heard of National Socialism.
Thus, the bitter competition to determine who was best qualified to deal with the Jewish question revived with renewed intensity in the 1930s. First it had been between Lueger and the panGerman nationalists, then it was Kunschak and other Christian Social antiSemites and the Social Democrats. Now it was primarily between the Catholics and the Nazis. This time, however, the

 

Page 169
Catholics found themselves at a distinct disadvantage because of their unwillingness to embrace racial antiSemitism wholeheartedly; the financial support the Christian Socials received from capitalists, some of whom were Jews, was another major embarrassment.

The approach many Catholics took in this competition was reminiscent of arguments made by private Austrian organizationsnamely, that the Germans were too weak or too insincere in their antiSemitism. Josef Eberle made this point in one of the early issues of
Schönere Zukunft
in 1926, long before the Nazis had become a serious factor in German politics. German Catholics were allegedly not really aware of the Jewish question because their own Catholic press ignored the issue and even accepted advertisements from Jews. Shallow humanism and dangerous tolerance would only benefit Jews at the expense of Christians. Hatred and pogroms were not necessary, but Jewish influence had to be limited to their numbers.

52

Eberle and
Schönere Zukunft
were only mildly critical of the Nazis' persecution of Jews after Hitler's takeover of power in 1933, even though Eberle had written in 1931 that the Nazis' handling of the Jewish question was both un-Christian and barbaric.
Schönere Zukunft
could agree with the Nazis that the Jewish "race" was inferior, but ultimately could not accept the Nazis' idea about the total depravity of Jews or the even broader notion that race is of decisive importance for whole peoples as well as individuals.
53
Christian Socials could not help but admire the Nazis' antiMarxism as well as their passionate opposition to the Paris Peace treaties. The
Reichspost
was therefore generally sympathetic to the new Nazi regime in Berlin but faulted its policy toward Jews. The newspaper maintained in March 1933 that the Nazis had betrayed their own anti-Semitic program. Jewish citizens in Germany were being treated just like everyone else. Then, after the brief boycott of Jewish stores on 1 April 1933, the
Reichspost
complained that Nazi antiSemitism in Germany was not legal and was disturbing the economic order. Other articles about antiSemitism in Germany were simply printed without comment by the
Reichspost
and other Catholic periodicals. On the other hand,
Christliche Ständestaat
a Catholic weekly that employed a number of recent Jewish convertspublished an article in 1936, warning against trying to take the wind out of Nazi sails through the use of antiSemitism instead of simply rejecting both Nazism and antiSemitism.
54
Schönere Zukunft
likewise remained critical of the methods, but not the goals, the German Nazis used in "defending themselves" against the "culturally and morally destructive work of the Jews." In May 1933 the weekly magazine claimed that National Socialism had its positive points. Hitler was

Other books

Pandora Gets Greedy by Carolyn Hennesy
DangerousPassion by Desconhecido(a)
The Ideal Wife by Mary Balogh
Shattered Spirits by C. I. Black
Final Cut by Franklin W. Dixon