416
PARTISAN REVIEW
treatment of trade unions as traitors of "true" workers' interest, in the
fight against all other mediating institutions of civil society that could
limit the powers of an absolute ruler, in the cozying up to the most reac–
tionary elements of the Roman Catholic church, in the denunciation of
the core democratic institution of parliament as a mere "theater," in the
fanning of distrust and hostility against foreign countries and foreign
political leaders, in the promotion of motherhood at the expense of
female participation in the labor force, in the ridiculing of modern
artists and of modern art, in the cult of a stylized "leader," and in the
denunciation of political opponents not just as ill-informed or mis–
guided, but as knowingly and schemingly evil. These attitudes and
mechanisms do indeed recall attitudes and mechanisms used so effec–
tively by the Nazis. Given Austria's past, this is alarming.
A decade ago, Austria's past was being scrutinized when Kurt Wald–
heim was elected Austrian president amid allegations that he was a war
criminal. He was not. He simply had not been open about his experi–
ences in the Wehrmacht. When challenged, he said that he had just done
"his duty." But can the participation of Austrians in the Wehrmacht be
explained or justified as a duty? Was it their country they had been serv–
ing? Their cause? What about the Austrians who died in resistance to
the Nazi regime? Should they be considered traitors?
This discussion indicated that in the public mind such questions still
remained open forty-five years after the end of World War II. Haider
now proves that they still have not been answered. Evidently, Austria
has not come to terms with its past. Nonetheless, many of the accusa–
tions against Austria miss the point.
It
is wrong, for instance, to claim that Austria did little or nothing in
comparison with Germany to persecute war criminals. True, a dispro–
portionate number of the most notorious Nazi butchers had been Aus–
trians. However, the postwar reaction was severe and in proportion to
the size of its population a greater number were punished than in (West–
ern) Germany.
It
is also not true that there was no restitution of Jewish
property that had been confiscated after
1938.
In fact, this property was
restituted, and rather speedily, although the proceedings were often to
the disadvantage of the former owners, and more could have been done
to settle some issues (i.e., confiscated art, which was dealt with in three
instances, the last time in
1998).
The record on general compensation of
the victims of persecution remains ambiguous. But it is difficult to see
how it could have been otherwise.
Austria defines itself as having been the first victim of German aggres–
sion. This position is not merely opportunistic, since the victorious allies
