Search

When Adolf Hitler annexed Austria to the German Reich in 1938, the famous Jewish oral pathologist Bernhard Gottlieb was in great distress. The Viennese university teacher immediately lost his employment and teaching authority and was forced to emigrate.While Gottlieb's exceptional scientific position in oral pathology is well documented, the complex implications of his deprivation of rights and forced emigration in the Third Reich have so far received little attention. Against this background, the present contribution poses the question of the concrete effects of this drastic event on Gottlieb's life and work.In order to clarify this question, Gottlieb's career status, his scientific success up to 1938, the concrete background of his forced emigration, as well as the further course of his life and career in the USA (his immigration country) are scrutinized. In addition, the paper analyzes the extent to which Gottlieb was able to build on his professional career after 1945 and posthumously. The work is based on a thorough analysis of Gottlieb's academic career using archival sources and a re-analysis of the relevant research literature.The study concludes that Gottlieb suffered a severe setback after his emigration. Several reasons played a role. In particular, cultural and age-related adjustment problems, difficult local conditions, and scarce financial resources hampered the seamless continuation of Gottlieb's career in the USA. Only in the last two decades have efforts been made, particularly in the environment of the University of Vienna, to bring Bernhard Gottlieb and his scientific achievements back into collective memory.

Copyright of Revista de Filología Alemana is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

From "Education Instead of Punishment" to the "Hardening of Personality": Psychotechnics and Hereditary Biology in the Austrian "Federal Institutions for Juveniles in need of Education", 1929-1945. This paper provides a historical analysis of the development of "psychotechnics", a branch of early applied psychology, in the context of the Austrian reformatories in Kaiserebersdorf and Hirtenberg from 1929 to 1945. These institutions were founded in 1929 after a juvenile criminal law reform in Austria that aimed to offer education and vocational training to juvenile delinquents. Methods of psychotechnic aptitude testing were implemented to help adolescents find a job that matched their abilities and interests. After the "annexation" of Austria in 1938, the reformatories repeatedly faced the threat of being shut down, but staff members managed to keep them running by adapting their educational, psychological and medical practices to the racial ideology and war politics of National Socialism. This article argues that applied psychology, despite its initial implementation as a tool to help young delinquents, effectively became an instrument for racial and political suppression as well as the war industry from 1938 to 1945. After the collapse of the Nazi regime, Kaiserebersdorf never saw a return of the progressive welfare ideals that stood behind its creation in the first place. Until its closure in 1974, it remained one of the most feared educational institutions in Austria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Beginning with the inception of suicide prevention in interwar Vienna, the paper illustrates how the high number of counselling centres contrasted with a discourse of selection. Despite the fact that suicide rates proved extremely high, suicide prevention declined in importance between 1934 and 1945. Suicide was increasingly attributed to the weak and the inferior. The massive threat to Vienna's Jewish population and the high suicide rates among Viennese Jews are also outlined. The paper concludes with a synopsis of V. E. Frankl's activities in the field of suicide prevention at the Rothschild Hospital as well as the concentration camp in Theresienstadt.

In this paper, the celebration of Freud's 70th birthday in Berlin is used as "time slot" to demonstrate the interconnectedness of psychoanalysis in the public sphere and its journalistic reflection. When central figures of public life had to emigrate and in some cases were even killed, this connection between institutionalised psychoanalysis and the political and cultural space was permanently destroyed.

This paper presents hitherto unknown material from the German Foreign Office referring to the denaturalization of Therese Benedek, Bruno Bettelheim, Adolf Storfer and Wilhelm Reich by Nazi Germany. It corroborates the finding that nobody was persecuted by the Nazis solely on the basis of psychoanalytic activities or membership in a psychoanalytic organization.

History of medicine played an important part in the ideology and policy of the Third Reich. The Nazi Party and the "Schutzstaffel" (SS) tried to instrumentalize historical knowledge to justify their ideology and medical ethics. The academic discipline of the history of medicine saw a revival during the Nazi period and, especially, during the Second World War. Important medical historians were eager to contribute to a symbiosis between the State and their field. The close relationship between the history of medicine and the Nazi regime was particularly apparent at Paul Diepgen's Department for the History of Medicine and Natural Sciences at the University of Berlin. Diepgen, apart from his own collaboration with the Nazi regime, was the teacher of Bernward J. Gottlieb who became the leading medical historian of the SS and Director of the new "SS-Institute for the History of Medicine" in Berlin in 1941. Gottlieb's institute moved in 1943 to the "SS-Academy" in Graz to train future SS-physicians in the history of medicine. The history of medicine was of great relevance also for certain members of the Nazi elite. They included Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS, who ensured that Gottlieb would become Diepgen's successor in 1945 for the chair of medical history at the University of Berlin. Hitler was asked to intervene in the appointment process given the political importance of the field and, in particular, the professorship being located in Berlin. The SS was able to exercise, by this time, a decisive influence on the field of the history of medicine. Only the collapse of the Third Reich prevented the traditional discipline from becoming a "science" to legitimize the Nazi System and the SS. The aim of this paper is to examine the role of the field of the history of medicine and of its key institutions and personalities during the Third Reich.

Copyright of SWS - Rundschau is the property of Verein fur interdisziplinare sozialwissenschaftliche Studien und Analysen and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article traces the political and social implications of laws outlawing National Socialism in Austria implemented after 1945. The author outlines the drafting, passage, and purported purpose of these laws, which were introduced at the behest of the Allied occupying authorities in the context of their efforts at the denazification of Austrian politics and society. She then details opposition to their provisions in the context of neofascist activism in Austria, assesses whether they contradict constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, and compares the Austrian laws to similar ones in other European countries.