Few political figures in postwar Austrian history have commanded as much attention as Bruno Kreisky. He remains the most conspicuous Austrian leader on the international stage since 1945 (unless one chooses to include Kurt Waldheim). During his tenure between 1970 and 1983, Austria punched above its weight as a facilitator of international dialogue between the Cold War blocs and between the global north and south. Moreover, to date, Kreisky was the only chancellor of Jewish background in the history of either Austria’s First or Second Republic—a point of ongoing scholarly interest, given the long tradition of antisemitism under the monarchy and democracies and, of course, during the Nazi era.
As the title of his book indicates, Daniel Aschheim is concerned with Kreisky’s “Jewishness” and the influence it had on his approach to domestic policy and especially foreign affairs concerning Israel. The author situates his contribution within the historiographical and biographical literature on Kreisky and offers a short methodological section that touches upon narrativity and memory. The volume proceeds in a combination of chronological and thematic order, beginning with the historical contextualization of Jewish identity in late nineteenth-century Austria-Hungary and into Kreisky’s youth during the First Republic. Aschheim transitions then to a detailed discussion of the “victim doctrine” that emerged from the 1943 Moscow Declaration, informed by insights from historians such as Oliver Rathkolb, Günter Bischof, Heidemarie Uhl, and Peter Pirker. This section underscores the cognitive dissonance that emerged through tensions between actual victims (i.e., political or racial targets of Nazism) and perpetrators or beneficiaries of the Nazi regime (who asserted themselves as victims under the cover of the Moscow Declaration). He follows with case studies addressing domestic political scandals and international developments tied to Jewish refugees from the USSR and to Israeli-Palestinian relations during Kreisky’s chancellorship. In addition to the book’s firm grounding in secondary sources, Aschheim references key Kreisky biographies written by Pierre Secher and Wolfgang Petritsch. He also draws on material from the Bruno Kreisky Archive Foundation in Vienna. Finally, in what is perhaps the most impressive and certainly most unique feature of his research, Aschheim conducted comprehensive interviews and engaged in detailed correspondence with Austrian and Israeli historians, journalists, politicians, diplomats, and other public figures who knew Kreisky personally. In short, the work is well-sourced.
Kreisky was undeniably a member of two victim communities. He came from a Jewish family, never shied away from acknowledging his Jewish background, and was acutely aware that he lost many family members to the Nazi genocide. However, he understood himself fundamentally as a pro-republic, staunchly antifascist Social Democrat, as a member of a milieu that traditionally eschewed identification with religion as a meaningful marker of identity, and which had harbored feelings of not only anticlericalism, but also its own share of antisemitism. Consequently, Aschheim’s line of inquiry suggests that Kreisky’s conflicting identities (Jewish vs. Austrian and social democratic) led to his own cognitive dissonance, manifested in his visceral condemnation of “Nazi hunter” Simon Wiesenthal and antipathy toward Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, on the one hand, and his support for Waldheim and for his coalition government colleague Friedrich Peter, a former Waffen SS member, on the other. At the heart of Aschheim’s analysis is his assertion that Kreisky’s commitment to public service as an Austrian Social Democrat meant that his identity was marked by profound ambivalence toward his Jewishness (41–48; 67). This would suggest, perhaps, that the author concludes that Kreisky should have been more attuned to his Jewish background, that he was even dismissive about that aspect of his life. At other moments, though, Aschheim recognizes that Kreisky’s relationship to Jewish identity only became tense, even explosive, when he felt others foisted it upon him (48).
Conclusions drawn by some of the author’s interview partners support this perspective. For example, Aschheim’s takeaway from a discussion with Kreisky’s former secretary, Thomas Nowotny, was that “[…] although Kreisky never tried to hide his Jewish identity, it did not impact his policies or politics. It only became an issue when imposed on him, like in the Kreisky-Peter-Wiesenthal affair and the Marchegg event” (47)—the latter an international controversy surrounding Kreisky’s decision to close a transit camp for Soviet Jews passing through Austria to Israel in response to a hostage-taking event by Palestinian militants. Rathkolb observes that Kreisky could explode in ways that seemed entirely irrational when he felt that others demanded he comport himself a certain way because of his Jewish background (93). This seemed to have been most marked in his relentless assault on Simon Wiesenthal as an alleged Gestapo collaborator and in his fraught interactions with Meir.
So, had Kreisky “deliberately tried to submerge his Jewishness into working class consciousness,” as a young man, as Joshua Muravchik suggests (57)? Aschheim dismisses this as speculation on Muravchik’s part. Yet Aschheim appears to support Rathkolb’s position that Kreisky “attempted to ‘contain his Jewish roots,’ as illustrated in his public presentations when he tried to overcome antisemitism” (46). On the other hand, he cites Bischof’s interpretation that Kreisky’s support for the former SS man Peter was a political rather than personal decision, one concerned with keeping his governing coalition together and preventing violation of the taboo associated with questioning the victim myth (90). Here, as well as with other themes addressed in the book, Aschheim is primarily content to serve as a mediator between different analyses and let readers arrive at their own conclusions.
His perspective becomes clearer with respect to Kreisky’s Middle East diplomacy, though; Aschheim argues “there seems to be little doubt that Jewish and Israeli concerns were at the heart of his torn psyche” (166). Here, the author suggests, as do several of his sources, that Kreisky’s roots came into play. Was his psyche “torn?” Perhaps Aschheim is correct, yet it would be impossible to conclude definitively based on the sources. A few of his interlocutors may have presumed that Kreisky should have been more sympathetic to Israel because of his Jewish background, but ultimately, readers would do well to remember Nowotny’s and Rathkolb’s observations that Kreisky seemed to bristle against assumptions that he should have acted in ways consistent with identity expectations that others imposed upon him. Perhaps he was determined to be his own person, not the one those people presumed him to be. In that case, his reaction would hardly seem evidence of a torn psyche, but rather a defiant expression of self-determination. Ultimately, Aschheim’s conclusion about what motivated or tormented Kreisky can only be a subjective one for author and readers alike.
I suggest that Kreisky took to heart the social democratic maxim that Religion als Privatsache should be respected; that one should not draw the conclusion that Jews are a nation across language and culture any more than, say, Roman Catholics; that while he understood Jews as a historic community of faith, one might acknowledge background without embracing community expectations that sometimes come with cultural or faith connections. Perhaps this explains Kreisky’s reactions when he felt identity expectations were being imposed upon him. I contend that we must respect the centrality of his self-understanding as an Austrian and as a Social Democrat. We would be hard pressed to otherwise understand his writings or his work addressing challenges of recovery and reconstruction during his stint as foreign affairs advisor in the Chancellery and during his time in the foreign ministry, or his commitment to modernizing Austrian society and promoting Austria’s role in international diplomacy, both as chair of his party and as federal chancellor.
We can conclude, though, that Daniel Aschheim has produced a lively, engaging volume. He raises interesting questions and probes them carefully. At times, it may appear that the author tips his hand with respect to his own expectations regarding Kreisky, but, to his credit, he acknowledges ultimately that there are no definitive answers. Instead, he weighs out possibilities, offers several suggestive summary points, and challenges readers to arrive at their own conclusions. The book posits a range of interesting considerations and, in so doing, provides a stimulating challenge to future researchers.
