Maurice Williams A Nazi Gauleiter, the B: future of Austria h Foreign Office, and the In August 1945 the British conducted an experiment with one of their prisoners of war. The captive, a leading Austrian Nazi, was asked to present his ideas on the future of Austria. How should the country be reorganized? How should it be reconstructed? Should its territory be expanded? ‘What followed was a remarkable essay, one which the British Foreign Office called a most accurate and penetrating analysis of the Austrian political situation.’ The author of the essay, Friedrich Rainer, was the ex-Gauleiter of Carinthia, one time head of the occupied territories in Slovenia, and former commissioner for the Adriatic Coastland. In the summer of 1945 he was the most prominent Austrian Nazi in British hands, Although the extent to which the British used Rainer’s essay is not clear, what is unmistakable is that Rainer wrote a meaningful and engaging analysis. He commented initially on the reasons for the collapse of the first Austrian republic, then, more importantly, he offered proposals on how to re-build that republic. Whether by accident or design, a good number of his recommendations came true. But the experiment also shows other things. The circumstances surrounding this essay demonstrate how the British authorities initially approached middle-echelon Nazis. It demonstrates how they sought information, as much information as possible since informed intelligence would help chem in rebuilding Austria. Further, the writing of the essay reveals a great deal about the former Gauleiter. It attests to his assertive personality, his burning ambition, his extraordinary analytical abilities, and especially his belief that National Socialism was not dead. Finally, while the essay is certainly prophetic what gives it special meaning is that the author appears as something more than a noteworthy example of Nazism. He represents the continuum of various ideas and values in twentieth century Austria, Rainer probably wrote his essay on the night of 19 to 20 August 1945. At the time he was a prisoner of the British military, held captive in Carinthia, where he was regularly interrogated by intelligence officials. On this occasion he was given overnight to write an essay on the re-organization and future government of Austria. With the logistical help of his room mate, Siegfried Uiberreither, the former Gauleiter of Styria, Rainer completed the project without reference to notes or books. The next day the finished essay was translated into English with the title Reconstruction in Austria." Although Rainer called this action his ,,first betrayal what he had done generally conformed with his cooperative manner. After an initial review with his interrogators the project widened. Rainer’s captors removed any reference to him and gave the essay to leading members of the People’s Party, the Socialist Party and the Communist Party in Carinthia for their comments. These too were translated into English. Then, the entire package was forwarded to the Foreign Office in London. There, initial comments on the value of the experiment and the validity of Rainer’s suggestions were made by the German Department, The remarks were favorable. Two weeks later the head of the German section in the Research Department added his thoughts, His analysis was more guarded, but he agreed that Rainer’s suggestions, both political and economic, were reasonable and constructive.’ Meanwhile, others learned of the project. In late October an extensive summaty of the experiment appeared in the Joint Weekly Intelligence Summary for Austria (JWISA), a publication which circulated widely among allied intelligence, political, and military circles. The summary was zeitgeschichte 6 / 28. Jahrgang / 2001 313entitled, A Gauleiter’s Views on the Future.’ Two weeks later a brief mention of the essay was made in another publication.’ After these references no further report of Rainer’s essay has yet been found among British records. The essay, however, clearly did not disappear. Some months later in 1946 the United States Political Advisor in Austria (POLAD) reviewed the essay, although there is no indication of what action followed.* The Man To understand better this extraordinary essay some background on Rainer is important.’ According to the British he was a man of unusual intelligence,* yet clearly vain and self-opinionated.” He was, by his own admission, a regular (meaning decent) Nazi. He accepted that there may have been unsavory National Socialists but that was a label for others, not for him. He was certainly ambitious, the collapse of the ‘Third Reich notwithstanding. He saw this essay, for example, as an opportunity to restore his fortunes."” He was also a life-long German nationalist. Born in Carinthia on the edge of the German Reich Rainer had been a principal figure in the illegal Nazi party of Austria from 1934 to 1938. After the Anschluss he served as head of the NSDAP in Salzburg where he established a reputation as a capable administrator, an avid anti- cleric, and a promoter. In 1941 Hitler sent him home to Carinthia where he became not just Gauleiter and Governor but also chief adminstrator for occupied northern Slovenia. Here he expended considerable energy pursuing Hitler’s directive to make this land German again. In 1943 he acquired another post as head of the Operational Zone Adriatic Coastland. This crucial region, carved out of Mussolini's collapsed Italy, protected the underside of the Reich. Here, Rainer built a major defense line from the sea to the Alps. Then, at the war’s end he became one of the few Nazi officials to transfer power peacefully to his successor. Following this consignment, like so many others he attempted to hide but was captured by the British Eighth Army." He was not a particularly honourable or likeable person, but he was a skilled politician. He nurtured his connections in the Reich with the likes of Heinrich Himmler, Herman Goering, and Emnst Kaltenbrunner so that he always had a sense of the political wind. From his earliest days he had moved cautiously so he had few apparent enemies. He was an especially keen observer, probably a complement to his interest in history. At school his favorite teacher had been an historian who taught him the importance of interpretation and analysis. ‘These attributes, combined with his natural intelligence, aggressive ambition, and administrative credentials made him an experienced political analyst and a valuable observer. Now he put those talents to use in his essay.” The Essay Rainer began by emphasizing that to achieve the reconstruction of Austria one must first establish a healthy political system, and second, realize economic stability. In order to reach the first, he argued that the state must guarantee political freedom to the individual, and farther, allow everyone to participate. Rainer made an especially strong case that the reconstruction must avoid past errors. ‘The First Republic had failed because of intense party rivalries which had permeated every aspect of public and private life. He stated the obvious, the parties placed their selfish desires above the welfare of the whole."> 314 Williams ,,A Nazi Gauleiter, the British Foreign Office, and the future of Austria”Rainer then suggested the things which he felt would avoid a recurrence of these problems and would lead instead to democracy. The new Austria, he said, should abandon voting by party list, nominating instead specific candidates in each voting district. That approach would bring the best men to power. Second, he argued that the head of state should be above politics. Preferably he would have liked a monarch, but argued more realistically for a republican President chosen directly by the people. In theory, Rainer pointed out, the First Republic had had this principle but the major parties had abandoned it and made the President instead a topic of political debate. Third, he recommended establishing a strong two chambered assembly like the British where the upper house, made up of provincial representatives, would redress the balance between Vienna and the provinces. He observed that in the earlier republic there had been such a house, but it had been too weak, Fourth, he advocated true universal suffrage (except for criminals). The right to vote should be accorded to men and women from the time when they are capable of supporting themselves. ‘Then Rainer elaborated on these points by talking about existing political parties. When looking at their history, he pointed out that the three parties (the Socialists, the People’s Party, and the Communists) were not exactly supporters of democracy. What was needed was a new party, a peasant-bourgeois grouping of the centre. He called this new group the Central (or National) Freedom Party. It should be conservative and it should support religious toleration. His view was that it would attract support from those voters who could not back the People’s Party because ofits strong Catholic link nor vote Socialist because they themselves were conservative. Rainer admitted that former Nazis would probably choose this faction, but he argued that it would be necessary sooner or later to bring these masses into a democratic party and educate them for AUSTRIA instead of turing them . . . into revolutionary elements hostile to the state.'* Along with these political reforms, Rainer also advocated a radical programme for reducing the hold of politics on public life. He said that schools, universities, and youth movements should be non-political. State enterprises should not be allowed to be the object of party rivalry. Organizations should serve only social, charitable, and cultural needs. Rainer called this process de-politicisation and said it should be anchored in the constitution. Further, it should be supported by an uncensored, responsible press, one which allowed for public expression of criticism, and for the public preservation of truth. Asa final point in creating a healthy political climate, Rainer argued for a federal state, not a centralized one. To reinforce this point he especially advocated a healthier balance between Vienna and the provinces. Vienna is too large for the country and exerts an undue preponderance over the Laender, especially since it is the provinces which determine the real character of Austria. Rainer advocated something special for the national capital. ‘The best solution for VIENNA would be to give the city an intemational function, as the seat of certain international institutions, such as Intemational Courts or institutions of the United Nations, This would lend a special dignity and significance to the Austrian State, and would give a characteristic imprint to the country. Rainer then turned to his second important consideration for reorganizing Austria: the economic sphere. The country needed a strong fiscal base if democracy was to work. In attaining economic stability, however, Rainer saw major difficulties (war damages, the seizure of resources by the occupying powers, unemployment, trade disruptions, and the breakdown of finances). But he had his solutions. He recommended that the current balance between prices and wages be maintained for the foreseeable future. He wrote that high wages are presently out of the question and argued instead for deflation. Further, he asserted that everyone should accept restrictions on their standard of living so as to avoid new unemployment problems. As he wrote, zeitgeschichte 6 / 28. Jahrgang / 2001 315