Heidemarie Uhl

The Politics of Memory in Postwar Europe

For sixty years, different groups in Europe have put forth interpretations of World War II and their respective countries’ roles in it consistent with their own political and psychological needs. The conflict over the past has played out in diverse arenas, including film, memoirs, court cases, and textbooks. It has had profound implications for democratization and relations between neighboring countries. This collection provides a comparative case study of how memories of World War II have been constructed and revised in seven European nations: France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Italy, and the USSR (Russia). The contributors include scholars of history, literature, political science, psychology, and sociology. Country by country, they bring to the fore the specifics of each nation’s postwar memories in essays commissioned especially for this volume. The use of similar analytical categories facilitates comparisons. An extensive introduction contains reflections on the significance of Europeans’ memories of World War II and a conclusion provides an analysis of the implications of the contributors’ findings for memory studies. These two pieces tease out some of the findings common to all seven countries: for instance, in each nation, the decade and a half between the late 1960s and the mid-1980s was the period of most profound change in the politics of memory. At the same time, the contributors demonstrate that Europeans understand World War II primarily through national frames of reference, which are surprisingly varied. Memories of the war have important ramifications for the democratization of Central and Eastern Europe and the consolidation of the European Union. This volume clarifies how those memories are formed and institutionalized. Contributors. Claudio Fogu, Richard J. Golsan, Wulf Kansteiner, Richard Ned Lebow, Regula Ludi, Annamaria Orla-Bukowska, Heidemarie Uhl, Thomas C. Wolfe

Of Heroes and Victims: World War II in Austrian Memory

In Tony Judts historical essay on postwar Europes political myths, Austria serves as a paradigmatic case for national cultures of commemoration that successfully suppressed their societies’ involvement in National Socialism. According to Judt, the label of “National Socialisms First Victim” was applied to a country that after the Anschluss of March 1938 had, in fact, been a real part of Nazi Germany. “If Austria was guiltless, then the distinctive responsibilities of non-German nationals in other lands were assuredly not open to close inspection,” notes Judt. When the postwar Austrian myth of victimhood finally disintegrated during the Waldheim debate, critics deemed the “historical lie” of the “first victim” to have been the basis for Austrias failure to confront and deal with its own Nazi past. Yet, one of the paradoxes of Austrian memory is the fact that soon after the end of the war, the victim thesis had already lost much of its relevance for many Austrians.

Conflicting Cultures of Memory in Europe: New Borders between East and West?

HeiJemarie Ubi i.l a Jenior reJearcher at the Commi.IJwn for Cultural Sttidie.J and HiAory of the Theater at the AUJtrian Academy of ScienceJ in Vienna and a lecturer at the UniverJitie.J of Vienna and Graz. Among her other puhlicatwnJ, Jhe WaJ the co-editor of Kulturen der DifferenzTransformationsprozesse in Zentraleuropa nach 1989, Transdisziplinare Perspektiven and co-editor of The Beginnings of the Shoah in Austria: Places-Pictures-Memories. In 2009, Dr. Uhl waJ a gUeJt lecturer at The Hebrew UniverJily of JerUJalem.

Mythos Staatsvertrag – Mythos Musik

Der 15. Mai 1955, der Tag der Unterzeichnung des Staatsvertrags durch die Außenminister der USA, der UdSSR, Großbritanniens und Frankreichs sowie den österreichischen Außenminister Leopold Figl im Marmorsaal des Oberen Belvedere, markiert den zentralen Gedächtnisort der Zweiten Republik: Wie eine Umfrage aus dem Jahre 1998 belegt, sind 20 Prozent der befragten ÖsterreicherInnen stolz auf dieses Ereignis, die Gründung der Zweiten Republik am 27. April 1945 wurde dagegen nur von einem Prozent genannt. Der Mythos Staatsvertrag verdankt sich aber – wie alle Mythen – nicht allein dem Ereignis selbst, so bedeutend dieses auch sein mag: Bereits die feierliche Unterzeichnung war auf eine pathetische Überhöhung dieses diplomatischen Aktes ausgerichtet. Die mediale Inszenierung in der Austria Wochenschau ließ den 15. Mai 1955 vollends zur Pathosformel werden, die sich durch ihre vielfache Reproduktion offenkundig unauslöschlich in das österreichische kollektive Gedächtnis eingebrannt hat: Leopold Figls „Österreich ist frei“ wurde zu einem audiovisuellen Gedächtnisort, der wie kein anderer die Zweite Republik repräsentiert. Und obwohl Figl diese Worte in der berühmten Balkonszene gar nicht gesprochen hat, vermeinen selbst Zeitzeugen, sie gehört zu haben. Gerade das „Überschreiben“ der Realität durch deren visuelle Repräsentation zeigt, dass die Präsenz des Staatsvertrags im Geschichtsbewusstsein der Zweiten Republik ganz wesentlich auf dessen visueller Darstellung in der Austria Wochenschau beruht. Dazu trägt aber auch die strategische Verwendung der Musik bei. Dieser Aspekt wurde bislang allerdings in der Analyse dieses Mediums kaum berücksichtigt: Mittlerweile liegen zwar einige Untersuchungen vor, in denen die Bedeutung der seit 1949 in den Kinos gezeigten Austria Wochenschau für die Prägung der Bilder und Vorstellungen über Österreich gewürdigt wird, der Anteil der Musik an der Konstruktion einer österreichischen Identität bzw. eines österreichischen Gedächtnisses wurde in diesem Zusammenhang jedoch noch nicht eigens in Betracht gezogen. 4

From the Periphery to the Center of Memory: Holocaust Memorials in Vienna*

Holocaust memorials are seismographs of historical consciousness. The topography of commemoration for the more than 66,000 victims of the Holocaust in the Austrian federal capital Vienna points up the development from exclusion of the Holocaust from Austrian memory to its incorporation: after 1945, the memory of the murdered was an empty space in the public arena. The official state doctrine of Austria as the ‘first victim’ of National Socialismis mirrored in the landscape of memorials: memorialization centered on resistance to the Nazi regime. The watershed came with the debate on Kurt Waldheim in 1986 when Austria was confrontation with its Austrian Nazi past. The establishment of the Holocaust Memorial on Judenplatz in 2000 symbolizes that the Holocaust had also gravitated to the center of the official culture of memory at the end of the twentieth century in Austria as well as professors at colleges and universities. The present paper will describe the stages in the process extending from the blanking out of Holocaust commemoration to its internalization.

Introduction – Cultural Changes in Central and Southeast Europe after 1989

The transformation processes in the countries of Central and Southeast Europe following the historic turning point of 1989 have emerged as a focus of scientific interest in the current topography of European research. The analysis of the processes of political, economic and social change is primarily geared toward the fields of politics, economics, and legal and constitutional systems. Against the backdrop of the largely politically, socially and economically oriented “Transitional Studies”, cultural studies research has grown in importance only recently. This development was the starting point for the second conference of the Young Scientists Forum (YSF) on Central and Southeast Europe, organized by the Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe (IDM) in Vienna. The question of “Cultural Changes in Central and Southeast Europe after 1989” is based on an expanded concept of culture that goes beyond traditional areas and institutions, such as literature and art. This new understanding of culture, which lays the foundation for Cultural Studies, is characterized by two aspects: first, the inclusion of (new) media, film, advertising, lifestyle, youth and popular culture, that is, culture as a “whole way of life,”1 and secondly, the perception of culture as a central authority for the generation of collective ideas and identities. Culture as a set of “signifying practices” refers to social systems of symbols and self-interpretations, to the negotiations and struggles for the interpretative power to define the common “we” in the societies of modernity.2 This is particularly visible in the “imagined communities” of the national “we” communities,3 but is found in multiple variations in different social groups and communities. Particularly evident is the relationship between hegemonic narratives, or symbolic forms, and everyday/social practices in gender issues. Culture is thus not regarded as a social subsystem, but as a “fabric of identity,“ DER DONAURAUM