Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-m6qld Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-14T23:11:54.748Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arbeitspflicht in Postwar Vienna: Punishing Nazis vs. Expediting Reconstruction, 1945–48

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2009

Matthew Paul Berg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Even before the war in Europe ended formally on 8 May 1945, there could be no serious misconceptions—either among defeated and liberated peoples or among the victorious Allied powers—as to how complex the challenges of reconstructing physical infrastructure and social networks would be.1 This was particularly true in urban areas within what had been Germany's 1938 borders, where the impact of air raids had reduced many areas to rubble and had damaged the rail and road connections that supplied foodstuffs and other necessities. In Berlin and other cities, images of people clearing debris from lunar landscapes dominated the popular imagination in the late 1940s and over the following decades. Indeed, when images of immediate postwar reconstruction have been invoked, it would appear as if there existed a heroic, unbroken connection between the initiative of these largely female volunteers (Trümmerfrauen) and the economic miracle associated overwhelmingly with largely male labor in West Germany a decade later. If a remarkable preparedness to come to terms with the exigencies of the present manifested itself during the initial postwar months, historians have subsequently offered insights into how problematic a consistent and thorough confrontation with the Nazi past proved to be during the later 1940s and beyond.

Type
Articles
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , Volume 37 , January 2006 , pp. 181 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example, Diefendorf, Jeffry M., ed., Rebuilding Europe's Bombed Cities (New York, 1990);CrossRefGoogle Scholar as well as Werner, Durth and Niels, Gutschow, Träume in Trümmern. Stadtplanung 1940–1950 (Munich, 1993). Unless otherwise noted, all translations in this article are the author's.Google Scholar

2 The literature is quite vast, and the following are only a modest cross-section of relevant works. See, for example, Josef, Foschepoth, “German Reaction to Defeat and Occupation,”Google Scholar and Frank, Stern, “The Historic Triangle: Occupiers, Germans, and Jews in Postwar Germany,” both in West Germany under Construction: Politics, Society, and Culture in the Adenauer Era, ed. Moeller, Robert G. (Ann Arbor, 1997), 73–92 and 199–230,Google Scholar respectively; Norbert, Frei, Vergangenheitspolitik. Die Anfänge der Bundesrepublik und die NS-Vergangenheit (Munich, 1999);Google ScholarJeffrey, Herf, Divided Memory: The Nazi Past in the Two Germanys (Cambridge, MA, 1997);Google ScholarPeter, Reichel, Politik mit der Erinnerung. Vergcmgenheitsbewältigung in Deutschland. Die Auseinandersetzung mit der NS-Diktatur von 1945 bis heute (Munich, 2001);Google ScholarKlaus, Neumann, Shifting Memories: The Nazi Past in the New Germany (Ann Arbor, 2000);Google ScholarBill, Niven, Facing the Past: United Germany and the Legacy of the Third Reich (London, 2002).Google Scholar

3 On denazification, see the now-standard works of Dieter, Stiefel, Entnazifizierung in Österreich (Vienna, 1981);Google Scholar and Sebastian, Meissl, Klaus-Dieter, Mulley, and Oliver, Rathkolb, eds., Verdrängte Schuld, verfehlte Sühne; Entnazifizierung in Österreich (Bad Vöslau, 1986);Google Scholar as well as works published by the Dokumentationsarchiv des österreichischen Widerstandes, such as Garscha, Winfried R. and Claudia, Kuretsidis-Haider, Die Verfahren vor dem Volksgericht Wien (1945–1955) als Geschichtsquelle (Vienna, 1993).Google ScholarOn Vergangenheitsbewältigung in Austria,Google Scholarsee, among others, Wassermann, Heinz P., “Zuviel Vergangenheit tut nichtgut!” Nationalsozialismus im Spiegel der Tagespresse der Zweiten Republik (Innsbruck, 2000);Google ScholarMeinrad, Ziegler and Waltraud, Kannonier-Finster, Österreichisches Gedächtnis. Über Erinnern und Vergessen der NS Vergangenheit, 2nd ed. (Vienna, 1997);Google ScholarAnton, Pelinka and Erika, Weinzierl, eds., Dasgrosse Tabu. Österreichs Umgang mit seiner Vergangenheit, 2nd ed. (Vienna, 1997);Google ScholarKnight, Robert G., “Absentee Germans—The Second Austrian Republic and the Nazi Past,” TelAviver Jahrbuch für deutsche Geschichte 26 (1997): 197–214;Google ScholarBerthold, Unfried, “Versionen der Erinnerung an Nationalsozialismus und Krieg in Österreich und ihre Veränderungen in der Waldheim-Debatte,” Zeitgeschichte 9/10 (1997): 302–16;Google ScholarRichard, Mitten, The Politics of Antisemitic Prejudice: The Waldheim Phenomenon in Austria (Boulder, 1992);Google ScholarArdelt, Rudolf G., “Zumutungen und Auseinandersetzungen. Reflexionen zur Ausstellung ‘Vernichtungskrieg. Verbrechen der Wehrmacht 1941–1944’ in Linz,” Zeitgeschichte 11/12 (1997): 346–64;Google ScholarGerhard, Botz and Gerald, Sprengnagel, eds., Kontroversen urn Österreichs Zeitgeschichte. Verdrängte Vergangenheit, Österreich Identität, Waldheim und die Historiker (Frankfurt am Main, 1994).Google Scholar

4 See Ela, Hornung and Margit, Sturm, “Stadtleben. Alltag in Wien 1945 bis 1955,” in Österreich 1945–1995. Gesellschaft—Politik—Kultur, ed. Reinhard, Sieder, Heinz, Steiner, and Emmerich, Talos (Vienna, 1995), 54–67;Google Scholar on Vienna, see also Hannes, Swoboda, ed., Wien. Identität und Stadtgestalt (Vienna, 1990);Google Scholar and Siegfried, Mattl, “Vienna since World War II,” in Composing Urban History and the Constitution of Civic Identities, ed. Czaplicka, John J. and Ruble, Blair A. (Washington, DC, 2003).Google Scholar For examples of a broader, non-Viennese focus, see Archiv der, Stadt Linz, ed., Entnazifizierung und Wiederaufbau in Linz, Schriftenreihe Historisches Jahrbuch der Stadt Linz, 2nd ed. (Linz, 1996);Google Scholar and Erich, Marx, ed., Befreit und Besetzt. Stadt Salzburg 1945–1955, Schriftenreihe des Archivs der Stadt Salzburg, 7 (Salzburg, 1996).Google Scholar

5 See the table in Stiefel, , Entnazifizierung, 93.Google Scholar

6 Hans-Georg, Heinrich, “Wien: Politische Kultur im Umbruch: Patronagesystem und politische Identität,” in Wien. Identität und Stadtgestalt, ed. Swoboda, 133.Google Scholar

7 Ibid., 134.

8 Mattl, , “Vienna since World War II,” 251.Google Scholar

9 Magistrat der, Bundeshauptstadt Wien, ed., Verwaltungsbericht vom I. April 1945 bis 31. Dezember 1947 (Vienna, 1949), 218.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., 330.

11 Ibid., 218.

12 Magistrat der, Bundeshauptstadt Wien, ed., Verwaltungsbericht vom 1. Jänner 1948 bis 31. Dezember 1949 (Vienna, 1951), 270.Google Scholar

13 Ibid., 279.

14 Wiener Stadt- und Landesarchiv (hereafter cited as WrStLA)—MD A6 Box 1, BA 137/45, “Körner an den Herrn Bezirksvorsteher für den … Bezirk,” 7 May 1945.Google ScholarKörner informed Lieutenant General Blagadatov, commandant of Soviet forces in Vienna, of his plan; Blagadatov acknowledged the wisdom of this directive and explained that he could ensure that Red Army troops stationed in Vienna accepted this arrangement, but that he was not directly responsible for the behavior of troops merely passing through the city. WrStLA—MD A6 Box 1 BA 127/45, “Der prov. Bürgermeister der Stadt Wien [Körner] an den Staatssekretär für soziale Verwaltung Herrn Johann Böhm,” 12 May 1945.Google Scholar

15 WrStLA—MD A6 Box 1, BA 127/45.Google Scholar

16 See, for example, WrStLA—MD A6 Box 2, BA 553/45, “Stadtrat für Verwaltungsgruppe V—Ernährungswesen, Magistrat der Stadt Wien,” 27 May 1945. This official left his apartment in Vienna's second district at 5:40 on 26 May to find a Red Army truck parked in front of the building. He was ordered to climb in by the sergeant in charge of the unit, despite the fact that he had a civil servant identification card issued by the Soviet commandant for Vienna. His papers were confiscated and he found himself driven to the third district with some twenty other men enlisted by the troops—among them a seventy-two-year-old whose right hand had been permanently disabled during World War I, a man in slippers and a bathrobe who had left his apartment house to fetch water, and a grocery salesman. When the truck arrived at its destination in the eleventh district, the civil servant prevailed upon the sergeant that a member of the municipal administration had more important things to do than load and unload material, at which point his papers were returned to him and he had to make the long walk from Simmering to the Rathaus on foot, arriving late for work. “It is my opinion,” he concluded, “that countless workers employed in vital sectors are rounded up on the way to work like helpless animals. Through such incidents we incur great shortages in work of central importance and, moreover, this behavior does not contribute to an improvement in relations between the Red Army and the Viennese population.”.Google Scholar

17 See Walter, Praeger, ed., Das Nationalsozialistengesetz mit Verbotsgesetz (Vienna, 1946).Google Scholar

18 Praeger, ed., Das Nationolsozialistengesetz, Artikel III §10 (1), 29.Google Scholar

19 WrStLA—MD A6 Box 2, BA 616/45, “Honner, Staatsamt für Inneres [Zl. 14.267–2/45, Vorgehen gegen Nationalsozialisten] an den Herrn Bürgermeister in Wien, den Herrn Polizeipräsidenten in Wien, die Landeshauptmannschaft für Niederösterreich in Wien, die Landeshauptmannschaft für Steiermark in Graz,” 9 June 1945.Google Scholar

20 Ibid.

21 WrStLA—M.Abt.218 Al Box 62, IV/4 216/1945, “Betr. Arbeitsverhältnis von zum Arbeitseinsatz herangezogenen Nationalsozialisten,” 6 July 1945. The document represented a response from the Staatsamt für Soziale Verwaltung to an inquiry by the Viennese Stadtbauamtsdirektion concerning ex-Nazis engaged in clearing rubble.Google Scholar

22 WrStLA—MD A6 Box 2, BA 934/45, “Staatsamt für Soziale Verwaltung an den Herrn Bürgermeister der Stadt Wien General Körner, betr. Zuweisung von Arbeitskräften zu vordringlichen Arbeit in Wien,” July 1945 (no precise date).Google Scholar

23 WrStLA—M.Abt.218 Al Box 62,18–204/45, “Mitteilungen der Magistratsdirektion: Meldung der Nationalsozialisten beim Arbeitsamt,” 12 June 1945. The director of Vienna's Landesarbeitsamt advised Körner that “on the basis of the great lack of labor power, a complete exclusion of [Nazi] party comrades from economic life is not supportable.” WrStLA—MD A6 Box 2,934/45, “Landesarbeitsamt Wien and den prov. Bürgermeister der Stadt Wien, Betr.: Arbeitseinsatz der Nationalsozialisten,” 24 June 1945.Google Scholar

24 Körner explained to Honner that “complete removal of all party members and aspirants from public service would, in my opinion, bring with it an untenable burden to public resources.”Google ScholarWrStLA—MD A6 Box 2, BA 722/45, 30 June 1945. The occasion for Körner's note was Honner's directive from 9 June 1945 (Zl. 14267–2/45) that no special consideration was to be shown to simple NSDAP members or aspirants, as well as an 18 June 1945 complaint from socialist and communist organizations in the Floridsdorf-Kagran district that fascist elements still remained in the Bezirk administration.Google Scholar

25 “Arbeit und Essen,” Neues Österreich, 12 July 1945.Google Scholar

26 “Der Schlurf,” Neues Österreich, 1 August 1945.Google ScholarInterestingly, the editorial's description of Schlurfs reflected some of the Nazi characterizations of swing kids: lazy (arbeitsscheu), long-haired, loose-limbed, asocial types infatuated with the newest jazz recordings and entirely uninterested in contributing to the common good.Google Scholar

27 For an example of this poster, see WrStLA—MD Al Box 628, MD 809/45.Google ScholarThe text was reproduced as “Kundmachung—Magistrat der Stadt Wien. Aufruf,” in Amtsblatt der Stadt Wien 50, no. 3 (12 09 1945): 6–7.Google Scholar

28 Ibid., 7.

29 See WrStLA—MD Al 809/45, “Hausliste für den Arbeitseinsatz im September 1945,” for an example of this form.Google ScholarAt the time I submitted this manuscript for publication, the Bestand “Landesarbeitsamt” in the Wiener Stadt- und Landesarchiv had not yet been ordered and catalogued for researchers.Google ScholarThus, it is not yet possible to ascertain how thoroughly these Hauslisten were completed on a house-by-house, street-by-street, and district-by-district basis—assuming, of course, that the archival record includes enough of these lists to draw meaningful conclusions. The form required that officials provide the street name, house number, and door number, the name of each adult resident, year of birth, sex, occupation, and number of hours worked per week; where the resident was employed, if the individual had been a Nazi Party member under §4 or §12 of the Verbotsgesetz; if grounds existed to exempt the individual from Arbeitseinsatz; and space for the individual to confirm the veracity of the information with a signature. Officials at the Landesarbeitsamt then placed the individual in one of the four categories that determined the number of labor hours required, the time at which they were to appear for work, and the sector of the city where they would report each day for deployment.Google Scholar

30 WrStLA—MD A6 Box 4, BA 1873/45, “Der Leiter des Polizeikoat II. an den Herrn Bürgermeister der Stadt Wien General Körner,” 8 September 1945.Google ScholarThis should have come as no surprise. In connection with the June-July edict issued by Honner and initiated by Körner, the Social Democratic Stadtrat Josef Afritsch had remarked to police officials that there were too few Nazis to rely upon for the scale of the task at hand. Although employing Nazis as a form of punishment or civic restitution was not unimportant in Afritsch's eyes, he considered it a mistake to limit such labor to Nazis alone (“die Nazifrage ist nur eine Detailfrage”). Afritsch maintained that the mobilization of all available Viennese assumed a greater urgency, given that severe transportation shortages would hamper clean-up (“das Entscheidenste ist die Transportmittelnot”) and more labor power would be required. MD 378/45 betr.Google ScholarArbeitseinsatz der Nationalsozialisten, “Aktenvermerk über die am 11. Juli 1945 … im kleinen Sitzungssaale des Staatsamtes für Inneres, General-Direktion für die öffentliche Sicherheit … stattgefundenen Amtsbesprechung,” in WrStLA—MD A6 Box 2, BA 934/45.Google Scholar

31 According to reports by an American State Department observer, the average Viennese could not spend more than ten marks monthly on foodstuffs, given existing stocks and ration card allowances—forcing approximately half of the population to supplement its meager diet through black market trade at some time or other.Google Scholar“Memorandum by Martin F. Herz to Senior Military Officer, Political Division USACA, Vienna, September 14, 1945,” in Understanding Austria: The Political Reports and Analyses of Martin F. Herz, Political Officer of the US Legation in Vienna 1945–1948, ed. Reinhold, Wagnleitner (Salzburg, 1984), 47.Google ScholarOn the nutritional situation during summer 1945, see WrStLA—MD Al Box 626, MD 361/45, “Magistrat der Stadt Wien, Magistratsabteilung V/1, Verw.Gr.V.-214/45 ‘Ernähungslage Wiens’ an den Herrn Stadtrat der Verwaltungsgruppe II, der Verwaltungsgrupe VI, der Verwaltungsgruppe IX, den Herrn Magistratsdirektor,” 12 June 1945.Google Scholar

32 WrStLA—MD Al Box 626, MD 361/45, “Ernährungslage Wiens,” 12 June 1945.Google Scholar See also “Memorandum of 2 August 1945 regarding ‘Notes on Food Situation in Austria,’” in Understanding Austria, ed. Wagnleitner, 23f.Google Scholar

33 See, for example, Körner's report to Provisional Interior Secretary Honner from 30 June 1945: “With respect to your decree of 9 June …, according to which there is no room for milder treatment of simple NSDAP members or party aspirants, I forward you the demands of two Viennese districts calling for the removal of all Parteigenossen and Parteianwärter from public service…. A complete removal of all Parteigenossen and Parteianwärter from public service would, in my opinion, bring with it a tremendous burden on public administration that would prove untenable.”Google ScholarKörner urged that proper legal measures be taken to regulate those Ehemalige who should be dismissed and those who might continue to work. The demands issued stemmed from joint SPÖ and KPÖ resolutions drafted in the districts of Floridsdorf-Kagran and Währing. WrStLA—MD A6 Box 2, BA 722/45.Google ScholarExpressions of dissatisfaction came from throughout the city. See, for example, WrStLA—MD Al Box 627. MD 682/45, “Magistratisches Bezirksamt für den 14. Bezirk an die Magistratsdirektion der Stadt Wien,” concerning 9 August demonstrations by socialist and communist workers and former concentration camp inmates against the continued employment of former Nazis in Wien-Penzing. According to §10 and §12 of the Verbotsgesetz, illegal ex-Nazis and those otherwise belastet (as identified in §4 and §10) were to be dismissed from the civil service. However, Dr. Kritscha, director of the municipal council (Magistratsdirektor), noted that “in very rare cases, if removal [of these individuals] results in the shortage of qualified personnel who cannot easily be replaced and jeopardizes sustained municipal operations, a proposal for the continued employment [of these individuals] can be submitted to … the Magistratsdirektion.” WrStLA—MD Al Box 626, MD 300/45, 11 July 1945.Google ScholarThe confusion within the city administration, among the general population, and with the four occupation powers required clarification. A group within the city administration led by Vizebürgermeister Paul Speiser (SPÖ) drafted guidelines consistent with the Verbotsgesetz for municipal and occupation officials alike, lllegale and Belastete were to be dismissed from public service, and nonillegal Nazis could retain their jobs at the discretion of their supervisors. WrStLA—MD A6 Box 4, BA 2262/45,25 September 1945.Google Scholar

34 See the striking example of sixty-year-old Hans Ehrenreich, who in response to Körner's call for September Notstandsarbeitseinsatz eagerly volunteered his services in the interest of showing thanks and respect to “our beloved, now so heavily war-damaged Vienna.”Google ScholarKörner responded with heartfelt thanks, announced that he had given Ehrenreich's letter to the Rathaus-Korrespondenz for publication (perhaps with the hope that it would inspire—or shame—others to volunteerism), and advised him to inform his Hausvertrauensmann or Bezirksvorsteher that he was prepared to take part in the communal labor. WrStLA—MD A6 Box 4, BA 1800/45.Google Scholar

35 WrStLA—MD A6 Box 4, BA 2141/45.Google Scholar

36 WrStLA—MD Al Box 629, MD1178/45.Google Scholar

37 WrStLA—MD Al Box 631, MD 1858/45.Google Scholar

38 WrStLA—MD A6 Box 4, BA 2139/45.Google Scholar

39 Ibid. Emphasis in the original.

40 Ibid.

41 No information on Frau S.'s visit to the Magistratsdirektion is included in the file. As a contrast, consider the case of Josefine M., who appealed to Franz Popp in the SPÖ Zentmbekretariat on behalf of her husband, Robert. Herr M. had become a Nazi in 1931 and remained so until the NSDAP was outlawed in June 1933.Google ScholarAlthough he rejoined the party “for purely professional reasons” shortly after the Anschluss, Frau M. maintained that “in his heart he never was a Nazi and became more and more opposed to the methods of the NSDAP, never exercised any political function during the entire regime, and continually refused to do even the smallest tasks for the party, despite continual demands. He never wore the party symbol.”Google ScholarFrau M. requested that her husband be released from labor service in Wien-Neubau, where the heavy labor he had been doing had exacerbated his already fragile state of health, “which any doctor can confirm.” Without supporting evidence from public health officials, such requests could not be granted. Verein für die Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung—Politisches Archiv der SPÖ (hereafter cited as VGA-PAdSPÖ), Zentralsekretariat, Allgemeine Korrespondenzen 1945, “M.”Google Scholar

42 WrStLA—MD A6 Box 5, BA 2733/45, Letter of 7 December 1945.Google Scholar

43 WrStLA—MD A6 Box 5, BA 2733/45, “MD Amtsvermerk vom 20.XII.1945.”Google Scholar

44 WrStLA—MD Al Box 644, MD 2347/46, “Magistratsdirektion an den Herrn Leiter der Einsatzstelle fur ehemalige Nationalsozialisten im 21. Bezirk,” 20 August 1946.Google Scholar

45 WrStLA—MD Al Box 629, MD 1308/45.Google Scholar

46 WrStLA—MD Al Box 633, MD 225/46, “To: General Theodor Koerner, Burgomaster City of Vienna; Subject: Labor Shortage,” 18 January 1946.Google Scholar

47 Ibid., “Körner an das Wiener Interalliierte Kommando, US-Section, zu Händen Herrn Brigadegeneral T. E. Lewis,” 31 January 1946.Google Scholar

48 These restrictions are delineated in Praeger, ed., Das Nationalsozialistengesetz, Artikel I §18 a) - p), 38–41.Google Scholar

49 “Auf sie finden die besonderen Bestimmungen der Gesetze über Wohnungsanforderung, Wirtschaftssäuberung und Arbeitspflicht Anwendung.”Google ScholarIbid., §18 i), 40.

50 Ibid., §19 (1) a) -1) and (2), 46–50.

51 Ludwig, Haydn, ed., Das neue Nationalsozialistengesetz. Bundesverfassungsgesetz über die Behandlung der Nationalsozialisten (Vienna, 1947), passim;Google Scholarsee also Stiefel, , Entnazifizierung, 101–24.Google Scholar

52 See Gustav, Hofmann and Franz, Keller, eds., Das Arbeitspflichtgesetz und die einschlägigen Vorschriften, mit eingehenden Erläuterungen und einem Sachregister (Vienna, 1946), §1 (2a) and §2 (la).Google ScholarIn the Nationalrat, SPÖ delegate Wilhemine Moik emphasized that “the law foresees that National Socialists will be drawn into reconstruction first and foremost”; Stenographische Protokolle der Sitzung des Nationalrates der Republik Österreich (hereafter cited as Sten. Prot.NR), V. G.P., 8. Sitzung, 15 February 1946, 103. Moreover, in response to a curiously timed complaint from the Allies on the slow pace and organizational setbacks surrounding exploitation of the manual labor of Ehemalige dated 11 March 1946—well after the Nationalrat had approved the Arbeitspflichtgesetz and sent it on to the occupation authorities for their imprimatur—the Austrian federal government officially replied in the very same words Moik had employed.Google ScholarSee Stiftung Bruno, Kreisky Archiv (hereafter cited as StBKA)—Ministerratsprotokolle, “Verhandlungsschrift Nr. 16 über die Sitzung des Ministerrates am 9. April 1946,” 2–4.Google Scholar

53 Sten.Prot.NR, V. G.P., 8. Sitzung, 15 February 1946, 103.Google Scholar

54 Hofmann and Keller, eds., Das Arbeitspflichtgesetz, §4-§6.Google Scholar

55 Archiv der Republik/Bundesministerium für Handel und Wiederaufbau (hereafter cited as AdR/BMfHW),57.009/111/11/1946, “Kundmachung des Bundesministeriums für Handel und Wiederaufbau vom 23. April 1946 über die Feststellung der für die Arbeitspflicht zugelassenen Arbeiten.” Categories A through C received equal priority, and within B and C emphasis depended upon local and regional needs. Once these three categories had been sufficiently addressed, additional energy could be placed on categories D through G, weighted according to priority.Google Scholar

56 Sten.Prot.NR, V. G.P., 8. Sitzung, 15 February 1946, 92–93 (Friedrich Hillegeist), and 95 (Karl Maisel).Google Scholar

57 See Hofmann and Keller, eds., Das Arbeitspflichtgesetz, §5 (2), (4) and §9(1), (6), respectively. Interestingly, those who had been wounded while serving in the Third Reich's armed forces found themselves free from Arbeitspflicht—unless those soldiers had become Nazis and had not been debilitated as a result of their injuries.Google Scholar

58 See “Verordnung des Bundesministeriums für soziale Verwaltung vom 20. Mai 1946, über arbeitsrechtliche Durchführungsbestimmungen zum Arbeitspflichtgesetz (Arbeitspflichtverordnung) BGB1. Nr. 100,” §6 (1) and §12 (1),Google Scholar in Hofmann and Keller, eds., Das Arbeitspflichtgesetz, 13 and 15, respectively.Google Scholar

59 Archiv der Republik/Bundesministerium für soziale Verwaltung (hereafter cited as AdR/BMfsV) 58.048-III/7/1946.Google ScholarSee AdR/BMfsV 44.875–111/7/1946, Landesarbeitsamt Wien, Geschäftszahl 3.310/II/46 Dr. St/La, 8. August 1946, an das BMfsV—“Arbeitspflichtgesetz; Berichterstattung über die Erfahrung bei der Durchführung.”Google Scholar

60 WrStLA, Nachlass Körner, 4. Amtsführung 1945–51; 4.19 Polizeidirektion Wien, Wochenberichte, November 1945-November 1946.Google ScholarSee, for example, 4.19.22.: Wochenbericht für die Zeit vom 14. bis 20. April 1946, “Razzia im Kaffee Klinik, IX., Spitalgasse 2 am 17. April”; 4.19.23.:Google ScholarWochenbericht für die Zeit vom 21. bis 27. April 1946,“Razzia im Kärntner Kino am 18. April,” in which 90 people were arrested and 20 assigned to work details; 4.19.24.:Google ScholarWochenbericht vom 28. April bis 4. Mai 1946, “Razzia in den Gast- und Kaffeehäusern des IV. Bezirkes am 25. April,” in which all 36 people taken into custody were later assigned labor service; 4.19.25: “Großrazien im mehreren Gast- und Vergnügungsstätten des XIV. und XV. Bezirkes am 2. Mai,” in which 291 people were cited and 85 led off to clear rubble; 4.19.28.,Google ScholarWochenbericht für die Zeit vom 26. Mai bis 1. Juni 1946: 260 people were detained by Soviet troops during a raid against black marketers at the Resselpark and 30 obliged to work.Google Scholar

61 WrStLA—MD A6 Box 7, BA 892/46, “Josef H. an Herrn Bürgermeister Gen. Körner,” 12 April 1946.Google Scholar

62 Ibid., “Antos an Herrn Josef H., 19 April 1946.Google Scholar

63 WrStLA—MD Al Box 642, MD 1844/46.Google Scholar

64 WrStLA—MD Al Box 644, MD 2221/46, 13 August 1946.Google Scholar

65 Ibid., letter of 27 September 1946.Google Scholar

66 WrStLA—MD Al Box 645, MD 2621/46, note of 15 October 1946.Google Scholar

67 WrStLA, Nachlass Körner, 4. Amtsführung, 1945–51; 4.14.Google ScholarSchuttbeseitigung, , Wochenberichte April-November 1946, 4.14.1.Google ScholarSee Wiener Magistrat der, Stadtbaudirektion, BD-2390/46.Google Scholar

68 See, for example, WrStLA, Nachlass Körner, 4. Amtsführung, 1945–51; 4.19.Google ScholarPolizeidirektion, Wien, Wochenberichte, , November 1945-November 1946, 4.19.14.Google ScholarWochenbericht für die Zeit vom 18. bis 24. Februar 1946, “Unfalle.”Google Scholar

69 Ibid., 4.14.2. (10 April 1946)-4.14.33. (10 November 1946).

70 Statistics released in January 1946, corresponding to the ten months following the collapse of the Third Reich, indicated 84,069 men and women available for work as Arbeiterlnnen or Angestelltlnnen and 121,825 vacant positions; 1946 figures released in January 1947 showed 68,225 people registered and 94,445 open positions; figures for the first three months of 1947, released at the end of March, recorded 73,349 registered and 116,327 openings.Google ScholarSee Österreichisches Jahrbuch (hereafter cited as ÖJ) (1945/1946): 291.Google Scholar

71 WrStLA—MD 1945—Arbeitseinsatz Nationalsozialisten bei Aufräumungsarbeiten, 1.178/45; Schneeräumung, 2.146/45; Schneesäuberungsarbeiten, Heranziehung, 344/46.Google Scholar

72 See, for example, WrStLA, Nachlass, Körner, 4. Amtsführung, 1945–51; 4.19.Google ScholarPolizeidirektion, Wien, Wochenberichte, November 1945-November 1946, 4.19.9.:Google Scholar“Selbstmord—die 40 Jährige Rosa, Kirchner, Wien IX., Berggasse 14 wohnhaft, gewesen, übergoss ihre Kleider mit Benzin, brachte diese in Brand, und stützte sich aus dem Fenster des 2. Stockes in den Lichthof, wo sie tot liegen blieb. Das Motiv der Tat ist der Verlust ihrer Wohnung bzw. Ihres Geschäftes wegen Zugehörigkeit zur NSDAR” 4.19.12.:Google Scholar “Selbstmord—der Bankbeamte Rudolf Sax wurde am 27. Jänner 1946 in seiner Wohnung, Wien II., Ennsgasse 23, erhängt aufgefunden. Das Motiv dürfte die Zugehörigkeit zur NSDAP und die Kündigung seiner Anstellung in der Bank gewesen sein.”Google Scholar

73 See Dieter, Stiefel, “Nazifizierung plus Entnazifizierung = Null? Bemerkungen zur besonderen Problematik der Entnazifizierung in Österreich,” in Verdrängte Schuld, verfehlte Sühne, ed. Meissl, Mulley, and Rathkolb, 35;Google Scholaras well as Klaus-Dieter, Mulley, “Zur Entnazifizierung der österreichischen Wirtschaft,” in Verdrängte Schuld, verfehlte Sühne, ed. Meissel, Mulley, and Rathkolb, 100–128, for a broad overview of denazification in the public and private economic sectors between 1945 and 1947.Google Scholar

74 Ernst, Koref's insistence that “the staatspolitische re-schooling of fellow-travelers and the misled, who through earlier circumstances of historical experience have recognized the criminal content of Nazi fascism and of the war unleashed by it, succeed best and most methodically [when they] are gradually integrated into cooperation in society and state,” is representative of the SPÖ focus upon the reintegration of Ehemalige through reeducation.Google ScholarSee Sten.Prot. NR, V.G.P., 28. Sitzung, 24 July 1946, 595.Google Scholar

75 In their comments on the published text of the Arbeitspflichtgesetz, Bundesministerium für soziale Verwaltung officials Gustav, Hofmann and Franz, Keller remarked: “In closing, a feature of the law must be referred to yet again, one which points to a very important problem that was continually emphasized in the parliamentary negotiations—namely, the pressing necessity to not only put unemployed young people to work in the interest of the economy, but above all for educational reasons, for otherwise the gravest danger would emerge that a part of the youth would be completely lost for established work as a consequence of the grave educational transgressions of the National Socialist regime and as a result of the absence of self-restraint and lack of willingness to work provoked by the war. Thus, [the law foresees] a possibility of creating a special educational institution in the form of communal labor via the introduction of young people into the work process.”Google ScholarHofmann and Keller, eds., Das Arbeitspflichtgesetz, 23.Google Scholar

76 AdR/BMfsV 45.840-III/7/1946, Landesarbeitsamt Tirol, Geschäftszeichen 5.552,10 August 1946, an das BMfSV— “Arbeitspflichtgesetz; Berichterstattung über die Erfahrungen bei der Durchführung,” 3.Google Scholar

77 AdR/BMfsV 44.057–111/7/1946. Landesarbeitsamt Vorarlberg, Geschäftszeichen Ila 5.109/5.552, 7 August 1946, an das BMfsV—“Arbeitspflichtgesetz; Durchführung des Arbeitspflichtgesetzes,” 4. AdR/BMfsV 45.840-III/7/1946, Landesarbeitsamt Oberösterreich, Geschäftszeichen I (A) 1.958/46, 7 September 1946,Google Scholaran das BMSV—“Arbeitspflichtgesetz; Berichterstattung über die Erfahrungen bei der Durchführung,” 1–2. Authorities in the industrial town of Steyr recorded fourteen arrests in connection with attempted evasion of Arbeitspflicht. AdR/BMfsV 44.875–1II/7/1946, Landesarbeitsamt Niederösterreich, Geschäftszeichen IIa/5.552, 8 August 1946, an das BMfsV; “Arbeitspflichtgesetz; Berichterstattung über die Erfahrungen bei der Durchführung,” 1–2. Most of the local Lower Austrian Arbeitsämter reported strong resistance to mobilization for labor service, as the population equated the obligation with wartime compulsion. Arbeitsämter throughout the province expressed reluctance to introduce punitive measures.Google Scholar

78 AdR/BMfsV 58.048-III/7/1946. Landesarbeitsamt Steiermark, Geschäftszeichen 5.552/Dr. Bi/Se., 28 September 1946, an das BMfsV—“Arbeitspflichtgesetz; Berichterstattung über die Erfahrung bei der Durchführung,” 1; AdR/ BMfsV 44.875-II/7/1946, Landesarbeitsamt Niederösterreich, 3.Google Scholar

79 AdR/BMfsV 51.936-III/7/1946. Landesarbeitsamt Kärnten, Geschäftszeichen 4.030 Fr./Ha., 4 September 1946,Google Scholaran das BMfsV—Arbeitspflichtgesetz: Berichterstattung über die Erfahrungen bei der Durchführung, 1. Even after ratification of more stringent denazification legislation in 1947 that required former Nazis to engage in labor service (in the case of the “heavily implicated,” internment from six months to two years in labor detention camps was possible if said individuals were deemed dangerous to the security of Austrian democracy), no significant number of Ehemalige found themselves working under such conditions. See Article IV, §18 (j), in Das neue Nationalsozialistengesetz, ed. Haydn, 42;Google Scholaras well as US deputy to the Council of Foreign Ministers Erhardt's, John G. dispatch to the US Secretary of State on the new denazification law of 1947, 7 January 1947 (prepared by Martin F. Herz), in Understanding Austria, ed. Wagnleitner, 100.Google Scholar

80 For an elaboration of these positions, see AdR/BMfsV 72.390-III/8a/1946; AdR/BMfsV 83.202-III/7/1946; AdR/BMfsV 122.945-III/9/1947; AdR/BMfsV 122.945-III/9/1947; AdR/BMfsV 135.091–111/9/1947; and AdR/BMfsV 140.991-III/9/1947.Google Scholar

81 AdR/BMfsV 122.945–111/9/1947. According to §18 (j) of the Verbotsgesetz, “[Former Nazis] can be exhorted to do compulsory work in accordance with the determinations of a special federal law.”Google ScholarSee Praeger, ed., Das Nationalsozialistengesetz, 40. Praeger was a legal scholar associated with the Arbeiterkammer in Vienna.Google Scholar

82 See Haydn, ed., Das neue Nationalsozialistengesetz, 19.Google Scholar

83 Stiefel, , Entnazifizierung, 308–9.Google Scholar

84 The United States provided almost 75 percent of total United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration food relief; Great Britain contributed approximately 17 percent, and the remaining approximately 10 percent was furnished by Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Brazil, India, and other states. Recipient countries included Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Soviet Union. UNRRA aid did not begin to reach Austria until April 1946, almost a full year after liberation.Google ScholarSee Wilfried, Mähr, Der Marshall-Plan in Österreich (Graz, 1989), 29ff.Google ScholarSee also ÖJ (1945/1946): 87–91.Google Scholar

85 Milward, Alan S., The Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1945–1951 (Berkeley, 1984), 103,Google Scholar table 19. See also Alois, Brusatti, “Entwicklung der Wirtschaft und Wirtschaftspolitik,” in Österreich: Die Zweite Republik, ed. Erika, Weinzierl and Kurt, Skalnik, vol. 1 (Graz, 1972), 434–43.Google Scholar For a comprehensive examination of the ERP in Austria, see Günter, Bischof, Anton, Pelinka, and Dieter, Stiefel, eds., The Marshall Plan in Austria (New Brunswick, 2000).Google Scholar According to the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei/Bundespressedienst publication Zehn Jahre ERP in Österreich 1948/1958 (Vienna, 1958), 33,Google Scholarraw tonnage of aid delivered broke down as follows: foodstuffs—793,234 tons; agricultural machines and appliances—9,877 tons; pesticides—4,917 tons; animal feed—5,078 tons; fertilizers—74,171 tons; crop seed (net)—74,953 tons; miscellaneous industrial supplies—2,465 tons; textiles—3,117 tons; raw materials—129,971 tons; medical supplies—1,195 tons; vehicles—1,195 pieces; trailers for vehicles—233 pieces.Google Scholar

86 Direct assistance totaled $211 million in 1948$49, $168 million in 1949$50, and $38.4 million between 1 July and 31 December 1950; indirect aid came to $66.6 million in 1948$49, $85.8 million in 1949$50, and $80 million in 1950$51. See Zehn Jahre ERP, 94.Google Scholar

87 The Belasteten were reintegrated with the 1957 amnesty legislation, which included: BGB1 Nr 82/1957, Bundesverfassungsgesetz vom 14. März 1957 womit Bestimmungen des Nationalsozialistengesetzes BGB1. Nr. 25/1947, abgeändert oder aufgehoben werden; BGB1. Nr. 83,Google ScholarBundesgesetz vom 14. März 1947 über eine Amnestie für politische Straftaten (Amnestie 1957); and BGB1. Nr. 123/1957, Verordnung der Bundesregierung vom 4. Juni 1957 zur Durchführung der NS-Amnestie 1957.Google Scholar

88 Mähr, , Der Marshall-Plan in Österreich, 46–47;Google ScholarFritz, Weber, Der kalt Krieg in der SPÖ. Koalitionswächter, Pragmatiker und revolutionäre Sozialisten 1945–1950 (Vienna, 1986), 120–22.Google Scholar

89 Günter, Bischof, ‘“Conquering the Foreigner” in The Marshall Plan in Austria, ed. Bischof, Pelinka, and Stiefel, 365–66.Google Scholar Italics in the original. Only 6 percent ofthat 19 percent reached Vienna. Ibid.., 386, table 3.

90 Approximately 63 percent of all destruction wrought by the war had occurred in Vienna, according to an Austriawide inquiry conducted by Ministry of Trade and Reconstruction officials. Magistrat der Bundeshauptstadt Wien, ed., Verwaltungsbericht vom 1. April 1945 bis 31. Dezember 1947, 235.Google Scholar

91 WrStLA—MD A9 Box 4, AV 260/46, “M.Abt. 25—Schuttaktion an den Herrn Bürgermeister,” 25 August 1946, 1.Google Scholar

92 WrStLA—Nachlass, Körner: 4. Amtsführung, 1945–1951, 4.14 Schuttbeseitigung, Wochenberichte.Google Scholar

93 WrStLA—MD A9 Box 4, AV 260/46, “M.Abt. 25—Schuttaktion an den Herrn Bürgermeister,” 25 August 1946, 1.

94 Ibid..,3.

95 Magistrat der Bundeshauptstadt Wien, ed., Verwaltungsbericht vom 1. April 1945 bis 31. Dezember 1947, 219.Google Scholar

96 Ibid.. See also “Die Wiederaufbau im ersten Halbjahr 1946,” in Amtsblatt der Stadt Wien 51, no. 31/32 (28 08 1946): 1–3.Google Scholar

97 WrStLA—MD Al Box 688, MD 563/49, “Ktr.A.I.—2912/48: NS-Registrierungsstellen, Arbeitsumfang undPersonalstand an die Magistratsdirektion,” 16 December 1948.Google ScholarThe 125,604 Ehemaligen required to register represented just over 10 percent of Vienna's population as reflected in initial postwa municipal population estimates reported in June 1945 in conjunction with census calculation and Soviet food aid delivery.Google ScholarSee WrStLA—MD Al Box 623, MD 204/45, 2 June 1945.Google Scholar