To be a Jewish citizen of Austria puts one in danger
of being impaled on one horn of a dilemma or the other.1I was once more Edward Hyde.
A moment before I had been safe of all men's respect, wealthy, beloved - 2
Many observers of Austria have pointed to the Waldheim affair
and the popularity of Jörg Haider as exemplifying a peculiar Austrian
malaise. In this view, Waldheim, and Haider are representative of a national
identity crisis. The historical roots of this crisis are traced to construction
of `Austria' by the resolutions and compromises amongst the great powers.3
Thus, up until 1933, if not 1938, the majority of Austrians held a conviction
about the unfeasibility of Austria as an independent nation. In the inter-war
years most Austrian politicians, socialists included, clamored for an 'Anschluss'
with Germany.4 But after the disastrous war, and the experience of Nazi
'oppression' for seven years, the cultural reference with Germany changed.
Rather than a look of envy or sympathy, most Austrian's felt disdain, if
not outright disgust and hate of Germany. Subsequently, after 1945
any philo-Germanism was perceived as neo-Nazi.
The foundation stone in the construction of Austrian national
identity was the victim clause of the 1943 Moscow agreement. In this agreement,
the three allied powers established that Austria was the first victim of
Nazi Germany. The declaration also mentioned that Austria had to take responsibility
for fighting the war at the side of Nazi Germany. But in the political
climate of the cold war, both Austria and the allies had reasons to ignore
the latter point.5 The 'myth' of Austrians as victims of the Nazis, was
necessary for the constitution of a westward and liberal leaning Austria.6
In order to create a bulwark against the Soviets, Austria, western Europe
and America all tacitly agreed to sustain the mendacious view that the
Austria was a victim of the Nazis. But the truth that everyone knew, was
that Hitler, along with many of the leading Nazis came from Austria, and
there were over six-hundred thousand Austrian Nazi party members at the
end of the war. In sum, 'Austria' was formed on rather tenuous foundations.7
Nevertheless Austria's post-war economic success, along with the 'invention
of a tradition,' has led to the instilling of a national sentiment in the
majority of the people. Thus, the 'myth' of Austrian victimization by the
National Socialists has been widely accepted. But Austrians are uncomfortable
in this skin, and the itchiness has been apparent for awhile.
Austria was the only european country once occupied by Soviet
troops to attain full independence after 1945. Austrian sovereignty was
achieved by glossing over internal differences between political parties,
and therefore the post-war political culture of Austria was determined
by a desire for stability. After experiencing the cultural trauma of civil
war in the thirties, and 'abuse' by the Nazi 'occupation,' Austria established
a system of social peace. With the state treaty in 1955, and subsequent
withdrawal of the allied occupation forces, a more or less 'corporate system'
was constructed. In this system parliament plays little or no role in decision
making. Instead, political party leaders control a system of patronage
and iron out differences between capital and the workers in back room meetings.
Since 1955 this form of political power has been shared essentially between
the People's Party (Christian Conservatives) and the Socialists.
The first crack in the stability of both the 'social peace,'
and the tenuous Austrian national identity appeared with the Waldheim affair
and the end of the cold war. With the revelation that presidential aspirant
Kurt Waldheim had lied about his wartime activities, and his resume 'overlooked'
his pre-war membership in National Socialist clubs, the myth began to crumble.8
Since the Waldheim affair, Austria has been in a process of self-questioning
that has led to a slow recovery of a buried and forgotten past. But
discovering the malaise and ambiguity that lay behind the comfortable post-war
political and cultural synthesis - a synthesis built on a repression of
the past - has had many ramifications. Even today, very few objective
portrayals of Austria from 1934-1956 exist, and most Austrians remain uninterested
in the past. Tony Judt has argued Austria's problem with public memory
is pan-European - existing in almost every country annexed or occupied
by Nazi Germany. In these countries, and Austria is an extreme case, there
has been an "erection of an unnatural and unsustainable frontier between
past and present" that has exonerated national histories from co-responsibility
for Nazi crimes. Thus, National Socialism became a German problem. In the
case of Austria, national identity became beholden to "a mendacious myth
rooted in ambiguity."9
Given the repressed and ambiguous past, it is not surprising
that the Freedom party (FPÖ) led by Jörg Haider has shown a renewed
interest in trying to find a 'usable' tradition.10 Rather than denying
the Nazi past, Haider has attempted to recast the Waffen SS as "decent
men" of spiritually superior character. Along with these and numerous other
outrages, Haider has described Nazi employment policies as "sound," and
Nazi extermination camps as "punishment camps."
As a Jew, Holocaust survivor, and founder of the school of logotherapy,
the internationally recognized Viktor Frankl had a peculiar role in post-war
Austria. On the issue of the ambivalent past, Frankl chose the part of
reconciler. This attitude of reconciliation eventually led to his success
in a society placing a premium on 'social peace.' But to be honest, in
post-war Austria Frankl had few other options. The deeply imbedded anti-semitism
lingered on in Austrian culture even after the Holocaust Since 1945,
there has been a tendency to deny or at least downplay the atrocities committed
against the Jews. As a survivor of Auschwitz, Frankl spoke publically on
the Holocaust and the Nazis with moral authority. And, in the post-war
Austrian culture of denial and repression Frankl certainly was one of the
few voices describing Auschwitz. For sure, Frankl's attitude of reconciliation
was perhaps the only possibility in the post-war Austrian culture of denial
- especially for a Jewish doctor who wanted to be someone of importance.11
Not surprisingly, in the 1950s and 1960s Frankl was essentially overlooked
by his fellow Austrians. Nevertheless, Frankl's chosen role of reconciler,
represented a unique example of how post-war Austria has failed to come
to terms 'honestly' with the past. We are left wondering, why would the
Auschwitz survivor choose to reconcile when his entire family had been
killed in the concentration camps? And, why did Frankl accept, and even
support the Austrian burial of the Nazi past? Finally, why did he publically
appear with both Waldheim and Haider?
RECONCILING
An example of Frankl's role as reconciler was his (small) part
in the Waldheim affair. On the September 9, 1988 a picture of Frankl with
Waldheim was printed in the Neue Kronen Zeitung. "Bundespräsident
Waldheim" handed Frankl, the "Grosse silberne Ehrenzeichen mit dem Stern."
"Waldheim würdigte vor allem, daß ein Mann wie Frankl, der so
viel mitgemacht hat, immer mit ganzem Herzen für die Versöhnung
eingetreten ist." Frankl, who "war nicht nur selbst KZ-Häftling,
sondern hat auch in dieser Hölle des Nationalsozialismus seine gesamte
Familie verloren," looked directly into the camera with an expression that
appeared slightly sheepish. Frankl's wife, standing in the background with
her eyes averted, appeared humble. Waldheim, smiling, towered over
Frankl and appeared polished, genteel and happy. And why shouldn't he?
Frankl was helping in the "domestic rehabilitation" of Waldheim. Frankl's
decision to accept a medal from Waldheim in these circumstances, (post-affaire
Waldheim) is very questionable.
But Frankl and Waldheim had a association of mutual convenience.
Frankl satisfied a desire for recognition and fame. For the newly elected
Waldheim, Frankl was useful for his 'rehabilitation' on a number of levels.
First, because Frankl represented a survivor who apparently had no animosities
toward 'good' Nazis like Waldheim. Therefore his appearance with Waldheim
had the effect of a defacto reduction of Waldheim's culpability for Nazi
crimes, and represented a moral and political legitimation. More broadly,
Frankl's conciliatory actions can be viewed as soothing Austria's wounded
identity. And, by appearing with the ex-Nazi, he was also serving to reaffirm
Austria's victimization myth. For his part, Frankl appeared heroic and
gracious - big enough - to be capable of forgiveness.
There was also another layer to their relationship. Some of Waldheim's
defenders resorted to a covert anti-Semitism by claiming he was being slandered
by the World Jewish Congress (WJC). One example of a crude right wing defense
of Waldheim was Carl Hödl's attack on President Bronfman of the WJC.
Hödl, the deputy mayor of Linz and member of the conservative, christian
democratic Austrian People's Party, (ÖVP) compared the attacks on
Waldheim with the crucifixion of Jesus - and framed the debate in terms
of Christians versus Jews. He also attacked the placing of Waldheim on
the "Watch list" and Bronfman's description of Waldheim as part of
"the [Nazi] death machinery." Interestingly, Hödl cited Frankl's
rejection of collective guilt to buttress his defense of Waldheim.12 Thus
Frankl's role as the reconciling, reasonable, good Jew who had the correct
attitude toward the Nazi past.13
Frankl remarked that it was rather ironic that a man in his position
should come out in 1946 against recognizing a collective guilt, but as
an Auschwitz survivor, Frankl clearly felt he had the authority to pardon
the perpetrators.14 But his position is surprising, especially since Frankl
didn't begin the exculpation by a process of introspection. He never addressed
the issue of whether a crime, or something wrong had been done. He never
differentiated between collective guilt and collective responsibility.
He never demanded Austria engage in a process of self-examination to uncover
their role in the catastrophe of National Socialism. For sure, such an
attitude would certainly not have played well in post-war Austria. And,
he was correct to claim there is no collective guilt. Only individuals,
not nations, can be held guilty. National character is not universal. But
there is individual guilt. And, as members of human communities there is
a collective responsibility. But in 1946 Frankl began with the statement
there is no collective guilt; never asking are we guilty?
In a speech given at the Vienna Rathausplatz on March 10, 1988,
on the 50th anniversary of "the occupation of Austria by the troops of
Hitler's Germany," Frankl repeated his argument against collective guilt.
He claimed "there are only two races of men: those who are decent people,
and those who are not." Frankl universalized this "distinction" as in "every
nation, and within nations right through every political party..." He then
extended this distinction to the "concentration camps" and the "more or
less decent people who belonged to the SS. And in the same way there were
also scoundrels amongst the prisoners."15
The insight that there are two races of men is so general (and
vacuous) that it cannot help but be true on some level. Frankl used
a strategy known as "comparative trivialization." That is, everyone, even
the victims are guilty. Frankl's claims served to pacify guilt, and avert
focus on the point that some people chose to accommodate the Nazis while
others took paths of resistance. Many others, were indecent people,
who decided to join the party and carry out its program fully aware it
was an immoral, anti-democratic political agenda that worked by terrorizing
certain people. Frankl knew these things, nevertheless, he didn't attach
his rejection of collective guilt to a condemnation of the Austrian Nazis.
Nor did he condemn the role the anti-democratic, christian, authoritarian
state played in paving the way for Nazism. Instead, he affirmed the victim
clause of the Moscow Agreement, and side-stepped Austrian responsibility,
by claiming "Ladies and Gentlemen, it was National Socialism which inflicted
the scourge of racial persecution on us."16 Frankl extended these apologetics,
and again side-stepped the issue of Austrian responsibility by blaming
the "regime or system which brings the scoundrels to the top....Therein
lies the true peril." This distancing of responsibility excused everyone
on the basis of the system. That is, everyone was just an insignificant
cog, caught in the totalitarian system. This version served to deny responsibility
and soothe the guilty conscience. Frankl also diffused responsibility for
the Holocaust by claiming "in principle any country is capable of perpetuating
the Holocaust."17
Taking a different tack, Karl Jaspers argued that all Germans
shared a "political liability" for the Nazi period. Writing in 1947, Jaspers
was challenging the Germans to found their political outlook and new state,
by being honest about the crimes perpetuated in the name of Germans by
the Nazi regime.18 Unlike Jaspers, Frankl was unable to confront Austrian
responsibility for taking an anti-democratic turn that ultimately led to
Nazism. Thus, Frankl held the vacuous "system," not the people, responsible
for Nazism and the Holocaust.
Since he was helping commemorate the 50th anniversary of the
Nazi occupation - which coincided with the Waldheim affair - Frankl also
argued against making people "feel guilty or even ashamed ... unless they
were determined to drive the young people today into the arms of the old-style
Nazis or neo-Nazis.19 Frankl's point is well taken; burdensome guilt upon
preceding generations could possibly lead to a neo-fascist reaction.20
Even so, Jaspers pointed-out that there is a type of metaphysical guilt
that every human community has - a responsibility for what was done in
the name of ancestors. In this limited sense, every generation of Austrians,
and more broadly, the community of the west, has a responsibility for the
legacy of fascism and the Holocaust. Not a responsibility for, but a responsibility
to remember in order to guard against the recurrence. But Frankl claimed
the present generation shouldn't be held responsible for "something their
parents or grandparents had to answer for." The contradiction, and problem
for Austria, is that Frankl viewed everyone as victims in 1946 and never
expected 'his' generation to answer for National Socialism.
THE FREEDOM PARTY
Given his opinions on the Austrian past it is not surprising that
Frankl had other uses for the political right in Vienna. His nomination
for "Ehrenbürgerschaft," came at the hand of Haider and the Freedom
Party (FPÖ). Frankl's ties to the FPÖ apparently began in 1981.
His philosophy of meaning, to be found in a "grosse Idee oder in einer
schenkenden Liebe für Menschen" was cited by the party theorist, Fritz
Wolfram.21 But Frankl's reconciling spirit and subtle downplaying of Nazi
atrocities were at the center of his appeal for the FPÖ. As mentioned,
the attempt to find a usable past is one of Haider's, who described himself
as a "good friend" of Frankl, main goals. Thus Frankl's claims that there
is "no collective guilt," "there were good Nazis and bad Nazis," "good
prisoners and bad prisoners," and most significantly, "good SS and bad
SS," fit nicely with the FPÖ agenda.22
The FPÖ did not have an easy time getting Frankl nominated.
The Christian Conservatives thought the award should go to a Catholic university
professor. The Socialist Party (SPÖ) was willing to go along with
the nomination, although the leftist intellectuals were demanding a detailed
resume from Frankl. For their part, the SPÖ tried to undermine
the FPÖ's efforts by offering Frankl another, although less esteemed,
citizenship award. Frankl declined, and at this point the FPÖ forced
the issue by going public with the nomination and started a petition campaign.
Backed against the wall the other parties ended up bequeathing the "Ehrenbürgerschaft"
on Frankl.23 The vote was an unanimous 99-0. Interestingly, the famed
Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal was nominated for the award exactly at the
same time as Frankl. But the FPÖ voted against the nomination
because the Wiesenthal Center had hung Haider's photo next to the right-wing
extremists, Jean Le Pen and David Duke at the museum of tolerance. For
his part Wiesenthal viewed the FPÖ "no votes as a badge of honor,
and said that his name and the prize would have no meaning if extremists
voter (sic) for him."24
To his credit, Frankl eventually "distanced" himself from Haider,
and had "little understanding" for Haider's speaking to the Waffen-SS.25
But Rüdiger Stix, a leading member of the FPÖ and supporter of
Frankl's nomination, bitterly pointed-out that this remark by Frankl seemed
disingenuous, because Frankl, like Haider, often claimed there were good
SS.26 Frankl's daughter, Gabriele Vesely-Frankl also reiterated the
claim of "distance" from Haider. She described the accidental grounds of
Haider's and Frankl's "friendship" and defended her father with the claim
he is "no politician."27 Nevertheless Frankl made his political positions
public. For another example of his reconciling spirit, in January
1993 Frankl claimed there was a necessity "for a dialog with the right
extremists."28
In sum, the internationally renowned Viktor Frankl came to be
recognized as a 'leading citizen' of Vienna.29 But, Frankl, like Waldheim
and Austria in general, was not exactly forthcoming and honest about the
ambiguous past. As we shall see, there were skeletons in his closet, therefore
the Auschwitz survivor is a prime example of Vergangenheitsbewältigung.
SKELETONS
Most of what we know about Frankl's ambiguous past is culled from
his recent autobiography, "Was nicht in meinen Büchern steht".
For example, after brief attachments with both Freud and Adler in the 1920s,30
Frankl began working under Otto Pötzl at the University clinic. Pötzl
was a very dubious figure politically because he claimed to have paid Nazi
party dues from 1930-33 without receiving his card, and he eventually joined
the Nazi party in December of 1943. But then, for unknown reasons, he had
his application reconsidered and redated to January 1941.31 In 1938, Pötzl
accepted the sterilization of the mentally ill on the grounds "it is indispensable
for the future of the people."32 In 1945 Pötzl lost his position as
the head of the university clinic in the de-nazification proceedings. Frankl's
relationship to Pötzl dated from 1928 when he designated Pötzl
as "Honorary President" of his burgeoning youth counseling movement.33
In 1996, Frankl claimed "Von Freud und Adler abgesehen war Pötzl für
mich 'das' Genie."34 Thus, throughout his life Frankl held Pötzl in
high regard. This affinity for Pötzl made sense, since when Frankl
worked and studied under him in the late 1920s and early 1930s he was beginning
to formalize logotherapy.
Perhaps Frankl's feelings for Pötzl, and attitude of reconciliation
can be accounted for by an analysis of his activities in the 1930s.
Therefore, the absence of moral judgement upon, and condemnation of the
Nazi past is partially attributable to Frankl's personal involvement with
the Nazi psychotherapy movement - something he never publically acknowledged.
But we must be careful and consider the peculiar nature of the Nazi Psychotherapy
movement and difficult circumstances Frankl faced in Vienna during the
1930s. Frankl's ambiguous relationship to Nazi psychology movement must
be understood on a variety of levels. There were cultural, professional,
personal, and intellectual reasons that served to dictate and limit his
actions. For example, Frankl was clearly politically allied with the socialists
in "Red Vienna" during the mid-1920s, but his rejection by Adler in 1926
and the beginnings of the slow demise of socialism after 1927, left Frankl,
like many Jews in Austria, politically adrift. In 1928, while still pursuing
his medical studies, Frankl attached to Pötzl and continued to develop
counseling centers for the unemployed and suicidal youth. Frankl sustained
this work after receiving his medical degree in 1930, and practiced as
a doctor, first under Pötzl, and then under Dr. Joseph Gerstmann at
the Maria Thersien-Schlössel. Then, from 1933 until 1937 Frankl worked
in the female suicide ward at the state hospital Am Steinhof.35 In 1936-37
he participated as a commentator (Jews were not allowed to present papers
but until 1938 could be commentators)36 in all four seminars conducted
by the Austrian "Landesgruppe."37 This Landesgruppe was the Austrian branch
of the Nazi-affiliated German psychotherapy movement run by Matthias Heinrich
Göring. In 1937 Frankl also wrote an article on the "spiritual problem
in psychotherapy" for the Göring Institute's journal, the Zentralblatt
für Psychotherapie.38 Then, in January of 1938, two months before
the Anschluss with Germany, Frankl publically promoted the leading thinkers
of the Göring Institute in "Der christliche Ständestaat".39
Despite the cryptic statements about the leading Nazi psychotherapists,
it is important to note that the orientation of "Der christliche Ständestaat"
was anti-Nazi and a steadfast supporter of the Catholic authoritarian state.
Not surprisingly these actions have never been fully addressed by Frankl
nor his followers.40
After the Anschluss Frankl lost his Göring Institute
connection and was also unable to practice as a doctor. Eventually he took
a job as "Judenbehandler" and then became a "Jüdischer Fachbehandler"
at the Rothschild hospital. Frankl was the Leitung der Neurologischen Station,
and his colleagues playfully (and inexplicably) nicknamed him "Nerven-göbbels."41
Frankl's curriculum vitae from the university archive in Vienna listed
his employment at Rothschild from 1939-42. Other sources listed his employment
as 1940-42.42 After the Anschluss the Rothschild hospital functioned as
the communal center for Jews. The hospital was also one of the few places
Jews could work, and therefore Frankl must have felt lucky to have employment.
He probably replaced one of the doctors who had managed to emigrate.43
The literature on the Rothschild is extremely thin,44 but we do know that
the hospital was "raided" intermittingly by the SS,45 and was supposedly
taken over by the Nazi authorities in April of 1939.46 At the Nazi controlled
Rothschild, in these years of extremity, we can only guess the types of
pressure Frankl was under.
While at the Rothschild Frankl conducted a series of controversial
experiments on suicidal patients. Frankl made no mention of his research
in his original biographical statement in 1973.47 Although he did mention
the experiments in a 1981 taped interview, the first public statement came
in 1996. Never one to express much self-doubt Frankl confidently recounted
his research efforts. Frankl proudly narrated that although he had no training
in brain surgery, and "Professor Schönbauer erlaubte mir nicht in
seiner Klinik auch nur zuzuzuschauen, wenn er oder sein Stab hirnchirurgische
Eingriffe unternahmen." Frankl also remarked that the "Primarius Reich,
der Chirurg am Rothschildspital, hatte es abgelehnt, welche zu unternehmen."48
Therefore Frankl decided to perform the brain surgery techniques after
reading about them. That these experiments were important for Frankl is
undeniable. He published an article documenting the experiments in
September of 1942 (ironically just as he was deported to Theresienstadt).
Despite Frankl's heroic rendition of his efforts his late life 'admittance,'
suggests there were, and remain, troubling issues surrounding the research.
Under normal circumstances, experimental efforts to revive suicidal
patients would fulfill the Hippocratic Oath to preserve life. But under
the circumstances of Nazi occupation, and in a Jewish hospital under Nazi
control, these experimental operations conducted on people who had chosen
suicide to counteract their plight, appear morally questionable on a number
of levels. Frankl claimed that there were up to 10 Jewish suicides a day
in the early 1940s, and thus he was justified in trying experimental and
risky measures to rescue them. We know, that approximately twelve hundred
Viennese Jews killed themselves during the Nazi era,49 and suicide, or
the 'Masada solution,' was very popular, especially amongst assimilated,
upper-middle class Austrian Jews faced with deportation.
Apparently, whenever patients had taken an overdose of sleeping
pills and then been given up for dead by other doctors, Frankl said he
felt "justified in trying something." First, "some injections intravenously
... and if this didn't work I gave them injections into the brain ... into
the Cisterna Magna. And if that did not work I made a trepanation, opened
the skull ... inserted drugs into the ventricle and made a drainage so
drug went into the Aquaeductus Sylvii....People whose breathing had stopped
suddenly started breathing again." But he "could only keep them alive for
24 hours no longer."50 Frankl's drugs of choice were Pervitin and Tetrophan.
It is important to note, that these aggressive medical efforts
by Frankl fit the time-honored Viennese medical tradition in experimental
and inventive research. Both Frankl's and Pötzl's medical work in
the latter 1930s and early 1940s exhibited this experimental character.
For example, Pötzl is credited with co-inventing and testing on a
large scale insulin shock therapy.51 For his part, Frankl described treating
the schizophrenic and melancholic patients he rescued from euthanasia with
"Cardiazolschocks."52 Both Frankl and Pötzl performed lobotomies,
shock therapy, and Frankl claimed to have initiated drug therapy for psychosis
on the continent.53 In sum, Frankl's actions at Rothschild, although experimental
and aggressive, fit the medical practice of the inter-war viennese doctors.54
The work that Frankl cited as having read on brain surgery was
"Dandy."55 Walter E. Dandy and his mentor, Harvey Cushing were probably
the two most influential figures in the field of modern brain surgery.56
Dandy's great contribution was ventriculography, which was a technique
for allowing the brain to be clearly x-rayed, and thus facilitated the
detection and removal of brain tumors. Dandy made this discovery at a young
age and then became a renowned surgeon. But what exactly is the relationship
between Dandy's work, and Frankl's experimental procedures?
Since Dandy never mentioned inserting amphetamines directly into
the brain cavity we can surmise this was Frankl's idea. Indeed, in the
article on the research, Frankl began by addressing this point, and the
"Möglichkeiten gibt, eine medikamentöse Substanz immer rascher
und immer näher an den Ort der Wirkung zu bringen."57 The medication
that Frankl was administering was the amphetamine pervitin, which, although
relatively novel, was in wide use in German military and civilian hospitals
at the time. The usual transmission of the drug would occur from the blood
to the cerebral spinal fluid. Normally one would inject Pervitin intravenously
and Frankl's initial research did just that.58 But Frankl thought he could
by-pass the blood stream and apply the drug directly into the cerebrospinal
fluid. Dandy's work on ventriculography suggested there were two ways of
achieving this. One was into the spine or "lumbar puncture," and the other
was through a trepanation of the skull and insertion into the cisterna
magna or ventricles. For injecting air, Dandy rejected the use of lumbar
puncture "as superfluous ... because a ventricular puncture gives the same
and much additional information and entails much less risk."59 Frankl used
both lumbar punction and trepanation to administer the drug. But
as he remarked, and the article revealed, the results of his research were
inconclusive. Nevertheless he decided to publish it.60
Apparently, in the extreme situation, Frankl felt justified in
trying something." But, as Frankl admitted, he had no training, and only
limited knowledge that was based in spotty reading rather than clinical
experience. Frankl was therefore testing the limits of proper medical practice
and ethics. Preferably, these researches should have been first tried on
animals for an extended time period. There also should have been a strong
basis in clinical observation and experience. But neither criterion
was the case. It is certainly possible that Frankl was simply committed
to rescuing suicidal patients whatever the circumstances. But he used questionable
medical practices to achieve that end, and it is likely he did these experiments
in an attempt to ensure his own survival.61 Clearly, the use of extraordinary
measures to save Jews who had freely chosen suicide to take their own lives
was not applauded by Frankl's own colleagues at the hospital. Thus, Frankl
described how:
"meine Assistentin Frau Dr. Rappaport protestierte dagegen, daß
ich Leute, die einen Selbstmordversuch unternommen hatten, zu retten versuchte.
Dann kam der Tag, an dem Frau Dr. Rappaport selbst den Befehl erhielt,
sich zur Deportation einzufinden. Sie unternahm daraufhin einen Selbstmordversuch,
wurde auf meine Abteliung eingeliefert und von mir ins Leben zurückgeführt
- und später deportiert."62
Nevertheless, Frankl was apparently aware of the moral and ethical
dilemmas posed by these experiments because at the end of his article documenting
the experiments he stated:
"Im übrigen mag erwähnenswert sein, daß wir bei
der Behandlung von Suizidanten uns auf den Standpunkt stellten, dass alles,
was therapeutisch möglich ist, auch getan werden soll. Denn wir teilen
nicht die Meinung, dem "Schicksal" seinen Lauf zu lassen und ihm nicht
"in die Hände zu fallen". Vielmehr sind wir der Ansicht, daß
wir zu retten haben, wen wir können, wenn das Schicksal oder die Vorsehung
einen Kranken nun einmal uns in die Hände gespielt hat, verzichten
wir darauf, Schicksal zu spielen und halten es nicht für Aufgabe des
Arztes, über Sein oder Nicht-Sein eines Menschen entscheiden zu wollen."63
This concluding statement reveals Frankl's defensive posture concerning
his efforts. Also, his justification that the doctor doesn't have the right
to play god, puts him a difficult if not slightly contradictory position
when defending his radical measures.
SUICIDE IN THE FACE OF NAZIS
Suicide in response to Nazi oppression usually had a political
element. But, the political side was often obscured because the majority
of those who chose suicide, in the face of forced collaboration or deportation,
did so silently and stoically.64 But there was the "'violent protest'...
of one Jew who rushed into a Vienna coffee-house screaming 'Heil Hitler'
then cut his throat before the eyes of the customers."65 Konrad Kwiet,
in an exceptional manner, thought through the issue of suicide under these
circumstances. According to Kwiet, if we view resistance in the "broader
sense" as:
"a 'deviation from the prescribed model'....Suicide was the ultimate
and most radical attempt to elude Nazi terror. And there can be no doubt:
Jewish suicides did interfere with the smooth technical-bureaucratic process
of exclusion and extermination. This transgression - which can be described
as resistance - was not tolerated. The Nazis sought to prevent Jewish suicides.
Wherever Jews tried to kill themselves - in their homes, in hospitals,
on the deportation trains, in the concentration camps - the Nazi authorities
would invariably intervene in order to save the Jews' lives, wait for them
to recover, and then send them to their prescribed deaths."66
Thus suicide in these circumstances was political, and also a form
of resistance - in the broader sense - because the Nazis did everything
they could to prevent and foil Jewish suicides. To deny the political side
of suicide in these circumstances, insults the memory, humanity and character
of those who made such a difficult choice.
Frankl's decisions and medical research, starkly contrasted other
Jewish doctors who faced similar choices. For physicians in Berlin the
debate over Jewish suicide turned on the issue of whether or not to provide
'the patient' with the means (usually sleeping pills) to facilitate their
own suicide. This was more than just a moral dilemma for the doctors, because
the Gestapo "wanted to find out where the individuals concerned had procured
the means for their attempted suicide."67 Most significantly, when
doctors in Berlin discussed the suicide wave, "no voice was raised against
the proposal that the last will of those who had attempted to take their
own lives should be respected by allowing them to die."68 In the circumstances
of Nazi oppression this resignation, as difficult and tragic as it was,
seemed the most 'reasonable' response. Therefore, despite the burdensome
circumstances, Frankl's presentation of his research as a heroic medical
effort that subverted the impact of the Nazis, won't wash. At the heart
of these ethical and moral considerations is the continuing problem of
how far Frankl went in his accommodation of the Nazis. Frankl's radical
measures to prevent Jewish suicide was consistent with the Nazi policy
to subvert Jewish suicide; but Frankl apparently felt it was his obligation
as medical doctor to invent new methods in saving lives. In the final analysis
Frankl's researches allowed him to play both sides. He could appear to
be on the side of the victim, working as a Jew in a Nazi controlled hospital
doing all he could to save Jewish lives. This was his story of the research,
heroic Frankl, long concerned with the problem of suicide now began to
take the most radical measures conceivable to subvert them.
How then did a "Juden Fachbehandler" manage to get this article
published in 1942? There are number of versions. At times he suggested
that because of the Nazis he could only publish the article in Switzerland.
In his last autobiographical statement he claimed the article was "gebilligt
vom Judenreferenten der nationalsozialistischen Ärztekammmer."69 For
sure, the Nazis would have found nothing to disagree with in the article.
Interestingly, on February 20, 1972 at the United States International
University he made these remarks to his students:
I was put in the concentration camps before I could finish the
research. This by the way was published, and the National Socialists hoped
that this could be tried and used in war, in combat, in the case of their
soldiers. That is why they even encouraged me to publish it in Switzerland,
so that they may read it in a journal. Only for this, I thank this possibility
to publish it.70
These conflicting reflections reveal a number of things. First,
given the uncensored honesty of his description before his students, it
is clear that this suicide intervention was supported by the Nazis. Secondly,
Frankl was apparently interacting with the Nazi establishment and was willing
to work for them. Thus an honest appraisal has to recognize that the research
allowed him to appear 'useful' in the Nazi war effort, and he apparently
was grateful the Nazis recognized his efforts. In the final analysis, Frankl
was willing to cooperate with the Nazi regime, and in his accommodation
he apparently never engaged in active resistance.71 Frankl defended his
actions from criticism by asserting "das ist genauso problematisch wie
die Behauptung, jemand hätte lieber ins Konzentrationslager gehen
sollen, als sich den Nazis zu beugen."72 Such a judgement is certainly
not the point of this article, and we do not have the space here to fully
unpack the relationship between the origins of logotherapy, Frankl's multi-layered
guilt and his post-war intellectual and political commitments. But this
insight into Frankl's 'hidden past' helps explain why he chose the role
of reconciliation, and why his recognition as Ehrenbürgerschaft so
exemplifies the Austrian malaise.
In sum, although Frankl's final autobiographical reflection wasn't
completely forthcoming, his thirty-first book certainly did begin to reveal
"was nicht in seinen Büchern steht." In the Austrian culture
of denial, Frankl's concluding 'confessional' statement deeply reflected
the malaise of a country not at home with its past. By 1995 Frankl felt
'comfortable' enough to render his questionable medical activities - that
had broke solidarity with other Jewish doctors, and denied the last wishes
of his patients - as heroic efforts to save lives. But the truth is, Frankl's
medical research was an obsequious accommodation, that contained a certain
professional opportunism, and amounted to a desperate attempt to avoid
deportation. With this insight into Frankl's pre-war compromises, we are
on our way to understanding his affinity for both Waldheim and Haider.
Like Waldheim, it was in Frankl's interest to reconcile and keep the past
buried. But when finally recovering the past, Frankl was like Haider, and
was thus interested only in a cryptic and sanitized version of the past.
Thus, it is somewhat surprising that Frankl even decided to publish this
updated version of his memoir.73 That he did, leads us to remain hopeful
that Frankl's final reconciliation will 'somehow' help continue the recovery
of the buried past and lead to Austria to becoming a 'Heimlich' country.
1 Grosz, 1995, p.264.
2 Stevenson, 1991, p.91.
3 In 1918, with the treaty of St. Germain, and in 1943, with the Moscow
Agreement, (the latter claimed Austria was the first victim of Nazism)
the 'state' of Austria was determined by diplomatic resolutions amongst
the victorious powers.
4 In May 1933, after Hitler's seizure of power in Germany, the socialists
removed the clause for a union with Germany from their platform. But as
the archive footage reveals, there was little or no resistance to the 1938
"Anschluss" by the Austrian people. For an excellent discussion of
these issues see, Mitten, 1992, pp.12-17.
5 For an excellent discussion of these issues see Fellner, 1988,
pp. 264-289.
6 On why Stalin failed to gain control of Austria, and the political
motivations behind America's accepting the 'myth' of Austria's victimization,
and the subsequent abandoning of the de-Nazification of Austria, see,
Piotrowski, 1988, pp. 246-277.
7 The longstanding political conservatism in Austria is exemplified
by Dolfuss' subduing of the workers in February 1934, and the defeat of
the Nazi coup by the Austrian state after Dolfuss' assassination in July
of 1934. In both events the forces for an 'Austrian order' defeated
the political aspirations of both the left and right. In sum, the
absence of a positive democratic tradition makes the political foundations
of the second republic very shaky.
8 For an excellent discussion of these issues see, Mitten, 1992, pp.246-261.
9 Judt,T. 1992-94, pp.83-118.
10 The FPÖ was originally the League of Independents formed in
1949. The League was made up of ex-Nazis, Monarchists, and other
right leaning figures. Most commentators considered Haider a political
opportunist and not a neo-Nazi. But there is a political philosophy
that is anti-democratic, anti-capitalist and authoritarian behind his opportunism.
Thus, his disdain for "foreigners," his hatred of "corrupt" government,
his proclaimed desire to remain isolated from the European union, his call
for a third republic, and most importantly, the fact that he polls nearly
25 percent of the vote, should be taken seriously. Given the situation
and his outlook, whether he is neo-fascist, neo-Nazi, or both, obscures
the reality of a novel danger.
11 In "Was nicht in meinen Büchern steht" Frankl recalled that
when he returned to Vienna after the camps he told his friend Paul Polak
that "Ich habe das Gefühl, ich kann es nicht anders sagen, als ob
etwas auf mich warten würde, als ob etwas von mir verlangt würde,
als ob ich für etwas bestimmt wäre." p.82.
12 See, Hödl, 1990, pp.141-47.
13 On the WJC and Waldheim, see, Mitten, 1992, pp.119-137.
14 Frankl,V. 1995, pp.80-81, also Frankl,V. 1951, pp.24-31.
15 Frankl, 1988, p.5.
16 Frankl, 1988, p.5.
17 Frankl, 1988, p.5.
18 See, Jaspers, 1986, pp. 396-408.
19 Frankl, 1988, p.5.
20 This claim for an unburdened past is similar to Hannah Arendt's
notion of "natality" where each generation has the opportunity to start
anew.
21 Wolfram, 1981, p.29.
22 Frankl made this last claim on a nationally broadcast television
interview in 1993, (housed at the archive of the FPÖ). Dr. Rüdiger
Stix, FPÖ member and in the Defense Ministry claimed they nominated
Frankl based on the 1993 interview. Significantly, in 1993 the more liberal
'leftist' members of the FPÖ left the party to form the Liberal Forum.
Thus Frankl seemed to be useful in the attempt to legitimize and rehabilitate
a rightist group.
23 The information on the politics behind Frankl's nomination comes
from my interview with Dr. Rüdiger Stix of the FPÖ, July, 1996.
24 See Simon Wiesenthal Center News Release, June 29, 1995, (Internet).
25 See "Viktor Frankl distanziert sich von F-Chef Haider" Der Standard
Jan 13, 1996, and "Frankl und Haider: Verägerung über den
'Freund,'" News 3/96.
26 On this point see the revised and updated Frankl, 1963, ftn. p.136.
27 Vesely-Frankl, 1996, pp.70-71.
28 See, "Viktor Frankl für echten Dialog mit den Rechtsextremisten"
in Politik no.6 Januay 26, 1993.
29 Frankl's world-wide renown was exemplified by the fact he gave the
keynote address to the first World Congress of Psychotherapy held in Vienna
July, 1996.
30 The secretary of the psychoanalytical society Paul Federn rejected
Frankl when he interviewed for training analysis in 1924, and Adler removed
Frankl from his inner circle in 1926.
31 See Pötzl's Nazi Party file available at the Dokumentationsarchiv
des österreichischen Widerstandes.
32 See, Hubenstorf, 1989, ftn. no.92, p. 275.
33 See Frankl, 1929, p.1675.
34 Frankl, 1995, p.48.
35 See, Index of Psychiatric Krankenhaus Baumgartnerhöhe 1934-1938,
Landes Stadt Archiv.
36 See Cocks, p.116.
37 See Zentralblatt für Psychotherapie, vol. 10, 1937. pp.7-8.
38 Frankl, 1937, pp.33-45. We do not have the space to conduct
a detailed analysis of this article now, but essentially Frankl argued
that although a world-view could provide a therapy, psychotherapy could
never represent a world-view.
39 Frankl, 1938, p.8.
40 This reticence is apparently changing. For instance in June of 1996
at the opening address of the World Congress of Psychotherapy, Frankl was
interviewed by Professor Giselherr Guttmann of the University of Vienna.
Guttmann, who is also a member of Frankl's institute cited Frankl's 1938
article in his concluding statement when trying to explain why Frankl and
his logotherapy had not received the recognition he deserved. (See
tape recording of the Opening Address World Congress of Psychotherapy,
June 1996.)
41 Frankl, 1995, p.55.
42 See Frankl,V. in Kürschners, Deabohe Gelehrtenkalender.
43 On the emigration of the Rothschild doctors see Stern, 1974, pp.7-8.
44 The sole work, Die letzten 12 Jahre Rothschild-Spital Wien:
1931-1943, was written in 1974 by Dr. Erich Stern. Stern, who was
a doctor at Rothschild, covered the entire period in a mere twenty pages.
There was no mention of Frankl, nor the hospital's director, Emil Tuchman,
who at his post-war trial was disparagingly labeled the "Jewish Hitler."
45 See Stern, 1974, p.14
46 See Bentwich, 1978, pp.475-476. Bentwich's article is based on personal
remembrance so this date may not be exact.
47 Frankl, 1973, pp.177-204.
48 Frankl, 1995, p.57.
49 See Berkeley, 1988, p.265.
50 For a verbal description of these experiments see Corrigan interview
at the Viktor Frankl Library. Also Frankl, 1995, p.57, and Frankl, 1942,
pp.58-60.
51 See, Sakel, 1949, pp. 404-409.
52 Frankl, 1995, p.60.
53 See Frankl, 1939, pp.26-31.
54 But these attitudes were also quite pervasive throughout the German
medical establishment. For instance, Robert Lifton connected the general
absence of empathy amongst German psychiatrists, to their critique of psychoanalysis
and to their development of violent techniques. Thus, the psychiatrist's
"doctrine of an absence of empathy....contributed to the development of
violent somatic treatment procedures ... such as insulin and metrazol shock
therapy, electroshock therapy, and lobotomy." Lifton, 1986, p.113.
55 See Frankl, 1995, pp.57-58.
56 Dandy was a famous American brain surgeon noted for his work on
ventriculography and brain tumors. Ventriculography is the term:
"for a diagnostic procedure utilizing the injection of air or some other
gas as a contrast medium into the ventricles of the brain, in order to
make the brain tissue visible in contrast to the less opaque gas. In the
absence of air or gas, the chambers cannot be seen on an x-ray plate because
they are filled with cerebrospinal fluid having the same x-ray capacity
as the surrounding brain tissue." Fox, 1984, p.44.
57 Frankl, 1942, p.58.
58 Frankl, 1942, p.58.
59 Dandy, 1945, p.73. This is an outake from Dandy's 1936 Brain
Surgery, which was translated and published in German.
60 Frankl would not have been surprised that his patients never came
out of a coma if he had read Dandy's original article on the discovery
of ventriculography. In 1918 Dandy wrote: "The various solutions ... thorium,
potassium, iodide, collargol, argyrol, bismuth subnitrate and subcarbonate
... were injected into the ventricles of dogs, but always with fatal results
owing to the injurious effects on the brain....The severe reactions that
are sometimes encountered after the intraspinous injection of the most
therapeutic remedies indicate the dangers even from carefully prepared
solutions. A slight acidity or alkalinity may result even in death.
It seems unlikely that any solution ... will be found which is sufficiently
harmless to justify its injection into the central nervous system. Dandy,
1918, p.39.
61 A secondary issue here is whether Frankl was retaining a traditional
medical view, (as mentioned, viennese medical standards were highly questionable)
or beginning to slide toward the Nazi medical attitude of experimentation
and subsequent dehumanization of Jews.
62 Frankl, 1995, p.58.
63 Frankl, 1942, p.60.
64 See Rosenkranz, 1978, p.41.
65 Kwiet, 1993, p.149.
66 Kwiet, 1993, p.138.
67 Kwiet, 1993, p.160. Kwiet also described how different doctors were
in Hamburg. When the Gestapo was expected to arrive, patients would be
given large doses of "Dolantin" in order to simulate suicide attempts.
"However, such measures effected nothing more than a postponement, for
those patients had to reckon with all the greater certainty to be included
in the next transport." Interestingly, Kwiet criticized Frankl for downplaying
the magnitude of suicide in the concentration camps.
68 Kwiet, 1993, pp. 159-160.
69 Frankl, 1995, p.57.
70 Lecture at San Diego International University (1972).
71 Since the hospital was often raided by the SS but there was also
some resistance to the Nazis. Stern described how some patients were diagnosed
with ailments that didn't exist to avoid deportation. Stern, 1974,
p. 13. This was confirmed by Ernest Seinfeld, who had his appendix removed
at Rothschild to avoid deportation in 1940. (Author's Interview 7/96).
72 Frankl, 1995, p.59.
73 In the preface to "Was nicht in meinen Büchern steht" Martina
Gast-Gampe remarked the book "Ursprünglich nicht für eine Veröffentlichung
bestimmt."
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bentwich, N.: "The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Austria 1938-1942." In: Fränkel, J. (ed.) The Jews of Austria (New York: 1978).
Berkeley, G.: Vienna and its Jews: The Tragedy of Success (Madison Books, Boston: 1988).
Cocks, G.: Psychotherapy in the Third Reich: The Göring Institute, (Oxford University Press, 1985).
Dandy, W.E.: Neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md. 1945).
Dandy, W.E.: "Ventriculography Following the Injection of Air into the Cerebral Ventricles," in: The Annals of Surgery, (July, 1918).
Fellner, F.: "The Problem of the Austrian Nation after 1945," in: Journal of Modern History 60 (June 1988).
Fox, W.L.: Dandy of John Hopkins, (Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, 1984).
Frankl, V.: "Die Existenzanalyse und die Probleme der Zeit (1946)" in: Frankl, V., Logos und Existenz (Amandus-Verlag, 1951).
Frankl, V.: Man's Search for Meaning (Washington Square Press, New York: 1963).
Frankl, V.: Münchner Medizinische Wochenschrift, October, 4, 1929.
Frankl, V.: "Pervitin intrazisternal," in: Ars Medici no.1 1942.
Frankl, V.: "Seelenärztliche Selbstbesinnung", in: Der christliche Ständestaat, Wien 30, 1938, 1.
Frankl, V.: "There is no Collective Guilt", in: Austrian Information, vol. 41, no.6 1988.
Frankl, V.: "Viktor Frankl." In:: Pongratz,L. (ed.): Psychotherapie in Selbstdarstellung (Wien, Verlag Hans Huber, 1973).
Frankl, V.: Was nicht in meinen Büchern steht, (Quintessenz, Munich: 1995).
Frankl, V.: "Zur Geistigen Problematik der Psychotherapie," in: Zentralblatt für Psychotherapie, vol. 10, 1937.
Frankl, V.: "Zur medikamentösen Unterstützung der Psychotherpie bei Neurosen" in: Schweizerisches Archiv für Neurologie und Psychiatrie, no.43, 1939.
Grosz, P.: "A Jewish View of the Anschluss and the Second Republic." In: Wright.W. (ed.): Austria, 1938-1988: Anschluss and Fifty Years, (Ariadne Press, 1995).
Haider, J.: Die Freiheit die ich meine, (Ulstein, 1993).
Hödl, C.: Leben ist nicht Zufall (1990).
Hubenstorf, M.: "Medizinische Fakultät 1938-1945." In: Willfährige Wissenschaft: Die Universität Wien 1938-1945 (Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik Wien, 1989).
Jaspers, K.: "The Question of German Guilt." In: Ehrlich,E. (ed.): Karl Jaspers: Basic Philosophical Writings. (Humanities Press, New Jersey: 1986).
Judt, T.: "The Past is another Country: Myth and Memory in Postwar Europe," in: Daedalus (1992-94.
Judt, T.: "Austria and the Ghost of the New Europe," in New York Review February 15, 1996.
Kwiet, K.: "Suicide in the Jewish Community," in Leo Baeck Yearbook, vol. 38. 1993.
Lifton, R.J.: The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. (Basic Books, New York, 1986).
Mitten, R.: The Politics of Antisemitic Prejudice, (Westview, 1992).
Piotrowski, H.: "The Soviet Union and the Renner Government of Austria, April-November 1945", in: Central European History (1988).
Riedlsperger, M.: "FPÖ: Liberal or Nazi?." In: Parkinson,F, (ed.): Conquering the Past (Wayne State University, 1989).
Rosenkranz, H.: Verfolgung und Selbstbehauptung: Die Juden in Österreich 1938-1945 (Wien, Munich: Herald, 1978).
Sakel, M.: "Über die Einführung der sogenannten Schocktherapie und Pötzl's Verdienst um ihre Einführung" in Pötzl's Festschrift, Herausgegeben von Urban,H. (Universitätsverlag Wagner, Innsbruck, Österreich, 1949).
Stern, E.: Die letzten 12 Jahre Rothschild-Spital (Europäischer Verlag Wien, 1974).
Stevenson, R.: Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, (Vintage books, New York, 1991).
Vesely-Frankl, G.: "Lasst Frankl aus dem Spiel!" profil Nr. 4, January 22, 1996.
Wolfram, F.: "Die Problematik einer weiteren Arbeitszeitverkürzung
und Freizeitvermehrung", in: freie argumente January 1981. Folge 2.
Timothy Pytell
233 E 25th str. #4b
New York, N.Y. 10010
USA
e-mail: tpytell@msn.com