Who were those Austrians who came to Australia during the late 1930s? The few works about Austrian World War ii refugees in Australia which exist draw a picture of a coherent group. In her book Austrians and Australia, the most comprehensive work about Austrian refugees in Australia, published in 1988, Marlene Norst described them as an “uprooted urban community with a social cohesion commonly found only in village migration.”1 She offered a broad characterization of the cohesion and social structure of the overall group. According to Norst, 2,144 Austrian refugees had arrived in Australia by 1942.2 They came mainly from Vienna and most of them were born before the collapse of the Habsburg Empire in 1918. The refugees were, for the most part, middle-class professionals or business people who had mastered at least one second language (in most cases French or English).3 Describing them as a “community of fate” with “shared memories and age-old traditions,” Norst further claimed that the refugees “were either related, knew each other, or had at least some mutual acquaintances.” Her work provides the most comprehensive published information on Austrian refugees in Australia as a social group and provides a valuable starting point for further research on the topic. However, since it was mainly based on assumption, her own experiences as a member of the refugee group, and interviews with randomly selected refugees, rather than on a meticulous analysis of source material, it requires further consideration.
2.1 Prosopography: Opportunities and Limits of an Integrated Method?
One fundamental problem of Norst’s laudable work is that she tends to rather generalize individual and personal information about the refugees’ lives, such
This chapter seeks to question and clarify these impersonal and generalized statements by engaging new sources and employing qualitative prosopographical methods. This will not only offer insights into some structural characteristics of a group of refugees as a whole but will also provide the quantitative foundation of my qualitative collective biographical approach, as my selection of biographees depends on statistical data.
Prosopography, a method, as previously mentioned, initially invented and applied by the classical scholar Theodor Mommsen during the late 19th century,4 aims at collecting and analysing large amounts of serial data through the use of standardized databases.5 According to historian Hilde De Ridder-Symoens, it specifies the external features of a group of people researchers have determined to have something in common.6 In his pioneering work on prosopography, historian Lawrence Stone recommended the use of prosopographies as tools “to describe and analyze the structure of society and the degree of the movements within it.”7 What follows from this is that prosopography is impersonal.8 In short, prosopography is all about statistics. By employing prosopographical techniques, this chapter, unlike the other sections of this book, is concerned with individual lives only as they relate to the overall group.9
To realize a broad prosopographical spectrum analysis of a distinct group of people who share specific common features, this book researched, compiled, and analysed 1,509 biographical dossiers or “biograms”10 which were created from official naturalization records. The research, more specifically, was based on complete lists of duplicates of naturalization records, stored in the National Archives of Australia, which were analysed according to preformulated
This book investigated general trends and common and diverging features of the overall group in order to draw a statistical picture that includes all Austrians who fled to Australia during the period under observation and became naturalized there. In accordance with the “ultimate purpose of prosopography,” as Verboven puts it, this chapter does not target individual stories but rather focuses on common and shared aspects of the lives of members of a group to collect data on phenomena that transcend individual lives.11 It seeks general, connecting factors which aid the understanding of the lives of individuals in a spectrum analysis.12 This enables us to define Austrian refugees in Australia as a group by indicating who is included and why. It further allows for the specification of common characteristics of the members of this particular group of people, which then enabled me to select my sample for a subsequent qualitative analysis.
Since this book uses prosopography as part of a more diversified research strategy based on collective biographical approaches, getting to know the demographics and the structure of the overall group was crucial. The analysis of complete sets of data enables us to specify the criteria required to select samples representative for the whole group. Without the existence of complete sets of data that incorporate standardized information about the vast majority of the refugees, a selection of a representative collective biography would be random.
2.2 A “Culture of Control”: Where Does the Information Come From?
It is self-evident that biographical studies of substantial numbers of persons are possible only for fairly well-documented groups, and that prosopography is therefore severely limited by the quantity and quality of the data accumulated about the past. In any historical group, it is likely that
almost everything will be known about some members of it, and almost nothing at all about others; certain items will be lacking for some, and different items will be lacking for others. If the unknowns bulk very large, and if, with the seriously incompletes, they form a substantial majority of the whole, generalizations based on statistical averages become very shaky indeed, if not altogether impossible.13
Consequently, one of the major difficulties of every prosopographical study is deficiencies in data. Prosopographies usually offer generalizations based on statistical sets of data incorporating information about each member of a group. When tracing groups of people who lived their lives 70 years ago, we usually do not have the luxury of equally available and comparable information about all the members of those groups. The question that then arises is how to deal with differences or gaps in the availability of data. The answer is somewhat unsatisfying. Applying this method only makes sense if we can rely on complete sets of data which allow for a broad-spectrum analysis of certain aspects of an overall group. Therefore, the question above must be reformulated. We must not ask how to deal with gaps in the availability of data but rather where to find sets of data that evenly include every member of a group. Furthermore, it would be of considerable interest to know which information they can provide us with.
Answers could be found, for example, in census-type surveys: these provide us with a cross section of a society at a given moment, thus providing reliable data for a spectrum analysis.14 However, depending on the conductor’s intention, their scope is very limited. They may not provide answers to all the questions a prosopographer would like to pose. Before conducting a prosopographical study based on census data, it is important to consider what could be gained from such a study. These preliminary thoughts are crucial because they determine the questionnaire, the evaluation period, and basically all further steps in a prosopography.
Immigration countries, such as Australia, have a long tradition of monitoring immigrants, especially of monitoring those migrant groups regarded as “undesirable.” In this context, historian Eric Richards noted that “Australia self-consciously designed its population in terms of size and composition,” thus maintaining what he described as a “culture of control.”15 These rigorous controlling, monitoring, and surveillance processes came with considerable
In recent years, the National Archives of Australia have launched digitization programmes to make immigration data available online. The archives are the first destination for anyone interested in Australian migration history and they also provide the statistical material for this prosopographical study.
Besides comprehensive files of data containing all kinds of information about every migrant who came to Australia during the period under evaluation here, the archives hold complete sets of naturalization certificates, issued between 1904 and 1962. Up until 1949, every Australian was a British subject. Therefore, every foreigner who successfully applied for naturalization in Australia up to 1949 was awarded British citizenship. This changed in 1949 when the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948 came into force and introduced Australian citizenship.
The discovery of duplicates of naturalization certificates, after intense engagement with the migration-specific records stored in the archive, provided me with the right kind of data for my research undertaking. They contain brief and basic information about the persons being naturalized: their name, their date of naturalization, their previous nationality, their date and place of birth, their place of residence at the time they were naturalized, and additional information about family members included in the certificate. Duplicates of naturalization certificates, in this case, satisfy the two basic requirements for sources used as a basis for prosopography. They offer sufficient and processable information, and are complete, thus offering information about every member of that group.
The records used for this study derive from sets of naturalization certificates stored in the book of duplicate certificates of naturalization (series A714 and series A715),16 which includes all naturalization certificates issued between 1939 and 1949 to persons born in Austria. Since they incorporate every Austrian-born refugee who fled before and during the war and applied for naturalization in Australia, these two series have been selected to serve as a data basis for this prosopography.
Officials, in general, had plenty of scope in enforcing the act, which stated: “Any person who is found committing an offence against this Act, or who is suspected of having committed, or being about to commit, such an offence, may be arrested without any warrant.”25 Ironically, the Australian government did not differentiate between regular migrants and refugees who fled from Nazi oppression in Germany. As soon as war was declared, German and Austrian nationals officially became enemy aliens. This created a critical situation for refugees, who had lost their civil rights twice at that moment: first during the Nazi oppression in their old homelands and then in their new homeland of Australia. Social inclusion and exclusion became arbitrary and was rather focused on perceptions of loyalty and disloyalty. Anyone who spoke a foreign language could be regarded as potentially disloyal. Furthermore, authorities frequently argued that “homeland allegiances continued to define the loyalty of the immigrant.”26
Since refugee questions had become more publicly discussed from 1941 onward—also due to increased refugee agency—the attorney general (first law officer of the British crown in Australia) set up the so-called Aliens Classification Committee in early 1943 to deal with refugee questions in greater detail.27 The committee, led by the chairman Arthur Calwell, very soon concluded that “it was both absurd and unjust to treat refugees from Nazi-Germany as enemy aliens.”28 Consequently, in its first interim report, the committee recommended distinguishing between “refugee” and “enemy” aliens. The recommendations
an alien who has no nationality, or whose nationality is uncertain, or who is an alien enemy in respect of whom the Minister of State for the Army, or a person authorised by that Minister to act on his behalf, is satisfied (a) that the alien was forced to emigrate from enemy territory on account of actual or threatened religious, racial or political persecution, and (b) that he is opposed to the regime which forced him to emigrate.29
Four years after the first refugees from Nazism had become “enemy aliens,” they were able to apply for reclassification.30 Changing one’s status from “enemy alien” to “refugee alien” was the first and most important step toward naturalization. It frequently led to the lifting of legal restrictions and, in general, also the improvement of the refugees’ position in society. Therefore, most of the refugees applied for the new status.31 After having spent five years in the country, which most of them had by 1943/1944, “refugee aliens” were allowed to apply for naturalization. And many of them did so, because naturalization offered them an equal legal status and equal conditions vis-à-vis their Australian compatriots.32 Only a very small minority of the refugees considered remigration to Austria as an option in the postwar period.33 In any case, immediate remigration was almost impossible because of the lack of civilian transport connections between Australia and Europe. Consequently, a large number of those who fled from Austria to Australia because of the Nazi occupation of their country applied for naturalization and thus were included in the book of duplicate certificates of naturalization (A714–A715).
2.3 Questionnaire and Analysis
To provide a reliable basis for the prosopography, it was necessary to merge key data of every single naturalization document into a database that allowed the
- 1.How many Austrian refugees were naturalized in Australia between 1939 and 1949?
- 2.What was the gender ratio of the group? How many men, women, and children were there?
- 3.How many refugees came alone? How many brought their partners and/or children with them?
- 4.Where were the refugees born?
- 5.Where did they initially move to in Australia and what was their place of residence when becoming naturalized?
- 6.In which year were they naturalized?
- 7.What did they indicate as their previous nationality? How many of them registered themselves as stateless?
- 8.What was the demographic of the group? What were the dominant age groups?
Data from the existing certificates with reference to the above questions have been captured and analysed. The results of that undertaking provided a clear overview of the group as a whole, which helped to establish the structure of a vague group that did not obviously display commonalities of identity or distinguishing features in their new homeland and thus usually was not publicly recognized as a cohesive demographic entity.
The following pages provide the answers to the above-mentioned questions. This not only improves our understanding of the overall group but also served as a basis for the selection of the representative sample group and therefore as a starting point for the whole book. The following characteristics and trends will be presented in the form of seven observations, which will be used later on in this chapter to conclude and methodologically justify the selection of this book’s representative examples for the collective study.
Observation 1: 2,655 Austrians were naturalized between 1939 and 1949; there was a slight majority of males.
As the existing records indicate, 1,509 certificates were issued between 1939 and 1949 to applicants born in Austria or the Austrian part of the Habsburg Empire before the First World War. If applicants were born outside of present-day
Observation 2: Austrian refugee migration to Australia was mainly a migration taking place within the framework of families. Most of the refugees who applied for citizenship had some of their family members included on the naturalization certificate.
Austrian refugee migration to Australia was predominantly family migration: 58 percent of the newcomers arrived with their partners. Altogether, the 1,509 certificates included 885 partners and 261 children. The documents do not usually specify the place of birth of the applicant’s partner and children, and could also include partners from marriages with Australians. The partners’
Total amount of naturalized Austrian refugees in Australia, 1939–1949, including partners and children
Observation 3: A considerable portion of the refugees were of advanced age. Only a minority were younger than 30 years old.
The analysis provides detailed insights into the demographics of the 1,509 main applicants. The available data shows that by far the largest part of the cohort comprised those who were older than 30 on arrival in Australia. The sources, however, did not offer specific demographic information about the family members included in the certificates. Those persons were only mentioned by their name and their sex.
This study subdivided the cohort into five age groups. The largest group (34 percent) consists of those born between 1900 and 1909 and thus between 30 and 39 years of age on their arrival in Australia. Those between the ages of 40 and 49 comprise the second largest group (22 percent). The third group (19 percent) were born between 1910 and 1919 and thus were between 20 and 29 when they arrived in Australia. The fourth largest group consists of people born in 1899 and earlier (14 percent). Overall, 14 percent of refugees were at least 40 years old when they arrived in Australia. Only 4 percent were born before 1879 and 11 percent were adolescents, born between 1920 and 1921.
Demographics of the refugees who were issued a naturalization certificate (as main applicants)
This analysis endorses the perceptions of earlier studies that Austrian wwii refugee migration to Australia came predominantly from Vienna. According to the book of duplicate certificates of naturalization, 82 percent of the 1,509 main applicants were born in Vienna. The second largest group (8 percent) consists of people born in the Habsburg Empire outside of the boundaries of present-day Austria. Most of them, however, had moved to Vienna either before or after World War I and therefore can be regarded as coming from Vienna. The third group (about 5 percent) comprises people from the state of Lower Austria. This state surrounds Vienna and was traditionally closely connected to the capital. The city was the centre of administration of Lower Austria during the interwar period. The towns and villages which formed Vienna’s greater metropolitan area were mainly located in Lower Austria. Thus, Lower Austria traditionally had a very close relationship to Vienna. The city’s predominance as region of origin for refugees in Australia becomes apparent when looking at actual figures. Out of 1,509 certificates issued to Austrian refugees, only 83 certificates were issued to persons from the seven other Austrian states besides Vienna and Lower Austria. Consequently, almost all Austrian refugees were somehow related to the Austrian capital. Most of them were born and raised there, and others either moved to the city or lived close to it before the Anschluss.
Regions of birth of naturalized Austrian refugees in Australia
Not only did the Austrians who fled to Australia before and during the Second World War come from an urban environment, the overwhelming majority of them settled in the major cities of Australia after their arrival. A huge 90 percent, or 1,358 out of 1,509 main applicants, lived in the greater-metropolitan areas of Sydney (742 persons) or Melbourne (616) at the time of their naturalization. Only 3 percent (44 persons) settled in South Australia, mainly in the area in and around Adelaide, and 2 percent (34 persons) moved to Queensland. Only 73 refugees (5 percent) moved to other Australian states or were listed as members of the Australian Imperial Forces.37
Place of residence in Australia at the time the naturalization certificate was issued
Observation 6: The majority of the refugees were naturalized during the last two war years and the year 1946 (i.e., at the earliest possible occasion).
Australian legislation required everyone who wished to obtain citizenship to spend at least five years in the country before applying for naturalization. The outbreak of the war worsened the situation for the refugees. Between September 1939 and November 1943, Austrian and German refugees were classified as so-called “enemy aliens,” which meant that they, as members of
Date of naturalization of Austrian refugees in Australia, 1939–1949
Observation 7: Three-quarters of all applicants were registered as “stateless.”
The overwhelming majority of all Austrian refugees who applied for naturalization in Australia was listed as “stateless.” This reflects their status and their desire not to be associated with National Socialist Germany, which had annexed their old homeland, deprived them of their rights as citizens, and consequently forced them into emigration. Only 5 percent were listed as “German Nationals,” although most of them had arrived with a German passport in Australia. An explanation for the low numbers can be found in the fact that most of those who arrived in 1938 still were in possession of an Austrian passport and most of those who arrived later insisted on being classified as “stateless” refugees. Some (11 percent) even managed to become listed as “Austrians,” although Austria did not exist as a state at that time. In these cases, the refugees either held an Austrian passport from the time prior to the Anschluss or they insisted on being classified as “Austrian.”
Previous nationality of Austrian refugees in Australia
2.4 Conclusion
This brief quantitative prosopographical analysis of the book of duplicate certificates provides comprehensive data that allows us to capture the indistinct
The results help with a reassessment of some of Marlene Norst’s theses, which were the only available source of information on the Austrian refugees as a group so far. They support her statement, mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, that most of the refugees were born before the collapse of the Habsburg Empire. Furthermore, I was able to show that in terms of demographics, a fairly mature group of refugees arrived in Australia. More than three-quarters of the group were 30 years of age and above on their arrival in Australia. I also showed that Austrian refugee migration was predominantly family migration. Most of the refugees came with at least one family member (children and/or partners) to their new homeland. The analysis also agrees with Norst’s assertion that migrants to Australia came predominantly from Vienna. As shown above, almost all refugees had close ties to the Austrian capital city and many were socialized there. The refugees continued to be city dwellers after their flight: in their new Australian homeland, they predominantly settled in the urban environments of Sydney or Melbourne. Less than 10 percent moved to other Australian states, and even there, they almost
2.5 Bridging Two Methods: Sample Selection
The prosopographical analysis offered information about the structure of Austrian refugee migration to Australia. It provided valuable statistical information about the group’s demographic composition, places of birth and of residence, the gender and family structure, and its members’ previous nationalities on a quantitative level.
This book, however, aims to delve deeper. Insights into processes of cultural translation can best be gained when leaving the macro level of analysis and turning to individuals as the actual actors of cultural translation, who pursue and negotiate transfer and interweaving processes.41 As described above, switching methods is necessary at this point since the remaining part of this book will explore the micro level of analysis by questioning and highlighting shared and diverging aspects of the lives of 26 cultural brokers, analysing and contextualizing them against the backdrop of Austrian refugee migration to Australia within the methodological framework of a collective biography.
As the subheading indicates, this section bridges the prosopographical part and the collective biographical chapters that form the core of this book. It is simply not possible to provide a detailed analysis of achievements of cultural translation which deals with all the individuals of that group. Since we can only describe these developments on the basis of a few representative examples, selecting the sample becomes a crucial methodological factor. As mentioned in the introductory section, this raises the question of “inclusion and exclusion.” Biographies have been following “spotlight approaches on extraordinary individuals”42 for a long time. Thereby, however, they have largely ignored the
Two questions arise when planning a collective biography that aims at mirroring a larger group of people. The first and most striking one is how to find and select representative samples. Collective biographies based on arbitrarily selected samples can sometimes be problematic. If samples are chosen randomly, collective biographical studies may lose their claim of being representative and run the risk of offering an unbalanced and distorted picture by not considering the whole spectrum of a group. Representativeness becomes increasingly important if the analysed group is particularly large. In the case of this book, for example, being content with 26 famous Austrian refugees who had successful careers in Australia and whose lives are well documented would have given the impression that the lives lived by Austrians in Australia were all success stories. The second challenge which can be encountered when conceptualizing a collective biography is finding a suitable number of samples. As Harders and Lipphardt stated, “there are no methodological restrictions on how many samples can be included in a collective biography. … The number of samples is rather determined by practical limitations.”43 For this study, the cross-selection of biographees must be large enough to reflect the diversity of the overall group, but also concise enough to allow the management of the wealth of the biographical material gathered and its presentation in a comprehensible form.
Usually, collective biographical studies of groups of historical actors offer a random selection of life stories chosen according to the existence, availability, and accessibility of data. Depending on the field of application, this approach is
Several aspects have to be considered when selecting representative samples for a collective biography. Firstly, comprehensive and complete data must be available for the overall group. This is crucial to define a collection of individuals as a coherent and related entity and thus to define the subject of the analysis. As Harders and Lipphardt noted, “the process of merging individuals into one single group is always problematic … since allocating individuals into groups barely copes with the reality.”44 Using the original certificates of naturalization in this study allowed me to draw on the very same criteria Australian authorities had used 80 years ago to classify incoming Austrian individuals as a group of migrant refugees.
Using contemporary bureaucratic data, however, also limits the scope of the questions that can be posed of the available data. The prosopographical study is based only on data that seemed relevant to the Australian authorities during the 1940s. Many more aspects, such as social status and class, would have been of interest for a prosopography, but did not seem important to the authorities and thus they were not recorded. Consequently, these questions remain open for the qualitative analysis in the collective biographical part of this book.
The following paragraphs explain and justify how the specific 26 men, women, and children were chosen for this analysis. The number amounts to 1 percent of the Austrians naturalized between 1939 and 1949. These 26 different individual life stories, carefully selected according to their representativeness vis-à-vis the overall group, are diverse enough to capture many different aspects of the cohort’s composition and offer a broader and more multifaceted picture of Austrian refugee migration to Australia. At the same time, 26 life stories are still manageable for researching, analysing, and presenting in the format of this book.
This allowed the selection of a group of 26 individuals from the 2,655 people of the cohort according to the main target of matching the statistical composition of the overall group. In short, the sample group of 26 had to approximate the statistical figures of the overall group as closely as possible. Finding the statistically ideal candidates posed a serious challenge. The months-long undertaking of researching and selecting fitting samples in private and public archives created multiple difficulties. This book’s method and the methodological goal made it necessary, on the one hand, to exclude some individuals who were obviously ideal candidates for a biographical study (due to their well-documented lives) because they would not match the requirements of the sample group, and, on the other hand, to incorporate people whose pasts were rather unclear and whose lives were very difficult to capture and reconstruct.
This presented another great challenge: how to get enough reliable data about the persons chosen to represent the whole group. In order to answer this, the research journey was extended far beyond the limits of traditional archival research.
As the comparison between the overall and the sample group reveals (Table 1), not every value of the sample group exactly matches the corresponding values of the overall group. An exact match without any variances turned out to be impossible, as each individual obviously would have had to satisfy multiple values (e.g., a combination of gender, age, birthplace, etc.). The results presented in Table 1, however, are satisfying in the sense that they comprise only small and negligible variations between the different figures of the groups. The results of this comprehensive process of finding representative samples can be seen in the two tables listed below. Table 1 shows the actual comparison between the overall group and my sample selection. Table 2 lists the names and places of residence of the people who will be analysed in the following collective biography.
Statistical depiction of the overall group and the sample group
Family composition |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
Overall group |
Sample group |
||
Main applicant |
57 % (1.509) |
65 % (17) |
|
Partner |
34 % (885) |
27 % (7) |
|
Child |
9 % (261) |
8 % (2) |
|
Total |
2,655 |
26 |
|
Gender ratio |
|||
Sex |
Overall group |
Sample group |
|
Male |
54 % |
50 % (13) |
|
Female |
46 % |
50 % (13) |
|
Place of birth |
|||
Overall group |
Sample group |
||
Vienna |
82 % |
92 % |
|
Other place of birth |
18 % |
8 % |
|
Date of naturalization |
|||
Year |
Overall group |
Sample group |
|
1944 |
30 % (452) |
38 % (10) |
|
1945 |
33 % (495) |
27 % (7) |
|
1946 |
22 % (317) |
23 % (6) |
|
1947 |
6 % (84) |
8 % (2) |
|
1948 |
6 % (84) |
4 % (1) |
|
| R est |
3 % (42) |
– |
|
Place of residence |
|||
State |
Overall group |
Sample group |
|
nsw |
49 % (742) |
40 % (10) |
|
vic |
41 % (616) |
50 % (13) |
|
sa |
3 % (44) |
7 % (2) |
|
qld |
2 % (34) |
3 % (1) |
|
Rest |
5 % (73) |
– |
|
Previous nationality |
|||
Overall group |
Sample group |
||
Stateless |
76 % (1.144) |
70 % (18) |
|
Austrian |
11 % (158) |
11 % (3) |
|
German |
5 % (79) |
11 % (3) |
|
Rest |
7 % (102) |
8 % (2) |
|
Demographics |
|||
Decade of birth |
Overall group |
Sample group |
|
Before 1879 |
4 % (74) |
4 % (1) |
|
1880–1889 |
10 % (141) |
4 % (1) |
|
1890–1899 |
22 % (326) |
16 % (4) |
|
1900–1909 |
34 % (511) |
23 % (6) |
|
1910–1919 |
19 % (286) |
38 % (10) |
|
1920 and later |
11 % (171) |
15 % (4) |
|
List of the members of the sample group
Name in Austria |
Name change in Australia |
Date of birth |
Place of birth |
State of residence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Agid, Olga |
– |
1879 |
Vienna |
Victoria |
Bergel, Johanna |
Lynn, Joan |
1935 |
Vienna |
Victoria |
Bergel, Marie |
– |
1903 |
Vienna |
South Australia |
Böhm, Ernst |
Bowen, Ernest |
1912 |
Vienna |
Victoria |
Böhm, Annemarie |
Mutton, Annemarie |
1919 |
Munich |
Victoria |
Bratspies, Gustav |
– |
1895 |
Vienna |
Victoria |
Butschowitz, Bruno |
Bush, Bruno |
1915 |
Vienna |
New South Wales |
Eckfeld, Reinhold |
– |
1921 |
Vienna |
Victoria |
Eisler, Hans |
– |
1924 |
Vienna |
New South Wales |
Felser, Gerhard Richard |
– |
1910 |
Vienna |
New South Wales |
Herskovics, Johann |
Hearst, John |
1914 |
Vienna |
Victoria |
Herzfeld, Paul Florian |
– |
1919 |
Vienna |
South Australia |
Hirsch, Paul |
– |
1892 |
Vienna |
Victoria |
Kolm, Johanna |
Exiner, Hanny |
1918 |
Vienna |
Victoria |
Langer, Gertrude |
– |
1903 |
Vienna |
Queensland |
Raubitschek, Helen |
Roberts, Helen |
1916 |
Vienna |
New South Wales |
Schwarz, Karl Anton |
Anton, Charles William |
1916 |
Vienna |
New South Wales |
Silbiger, Kurt |
Selby, Kurt |
1907 |
Vienna |
Victoria |
Tandler, Richard |
– |
1897 |
Bad Vöslau |
Victoria |
Tandler, Susanne |
Copolov, Sue |
1928 |
||
Teltscher, Heinrich Michael |
Teltscher, Henry Michael |
1921 |
Vienna |
Victoria |
Weiss, Irma |
– |
1887 |
Vienna |
New South Wales |
Watkins, Sylvia |
Cherny, Sylvia |
1924 |
Vienna |
Victoria |
Wetzelsberger, Margarete |
Vanry, Grete |
1908 |
Vienna |
New South Wales |
Winkler, Viola |
– |
1915 |
Vienna |
New South Wales |
Ziegler, Elisabeth |
– |
1917 |
Vienna |
New South Wales |
Norst and McBride, Austrians and Australia, 102.
Norst mentioned that she gathered this figure from data from the National Archives of Australia, however, she did not provide any further information or record any breakdown of numbers: Norst and McBride, Austrians and Australia, 99.
Norst and McBride, Austrians and Australia, 103.
Keats-Rohan, “Introduction,” 7.
Harders and Lipphardt, “Kollektivbiographie,” 83.
H. De Ridder-Symoens, “Prosopografie en middeleeuwse geschiedenis: een onmogelijke mogelijkheid?,” in Handelingen der Maatschappij voor Geschiedenis en Oudheidkunde te Gent 45 (1991), 95–117.
Lawrence Stone, “Prosopography,” Daedalus 100, no. 1 (1971): 46–79, 47.
Keats-Rohan, “Introduction,” 16.
Keats-Rohan, “Introduction,” 16.
Keats-Rohan, “Introduction,” 16.
Koenraad Verboven, Myriam Carlier, and Jan Dumolyn, “A Short Manual to the Art of Prosopography,” in Prosopography, Approaches and Applications: A Handbook, ed. K.S.B. Keats-Rohan (Oxford: Unit for Prosopographical Research, 2007), 35–70, 45.
Verboven et al., “Short Manual,” 41.
Stone, “Prosopography,” 58.
Stone, “Prosopography,” 58.
Richards, Destination Australia, 356.
naa, A714, Books of duplicate certificates of naturalization A(1)[Individual person] series; naa, A715, Book of duplicate certificates of naturalization A(2) series.
Norst and McBride, Austrians and Australia, 112; Wiemann, “German and Austrian Refugees,” 7–8.
Kwiet, “Re-Acculturation,” 44.
Wiemann, “German and Austrian Refugees,” 7–8.
Maria Glaros, “‘Sometimes a Little Injustice Must be Suffered for the Public Good’: How the National Security (Aliens Control) Regulations 1939 (Cth) Affected the Lives of German, Italian, Japanese, and Australian Born Women Living in Australia during the Second World War” (PhD thesis, University of Western Sydney, 2012), 38.
Ilma Martinuzzi O’Brien, “Citizenship, Rights and Emergency Powers in Second World War Australia,” Australian Journal of Politics and History 53.2 (2007): 207–222, 207.
O’Brien, “Citizenship,” 207.
Lang, Eine Fahrt ins Blaue, 49.
Commonwealth of Australia Numbered Acts, National Security Act 1939 (No. 15 of 1939),
Comp. National Security Act 1939 (No 15 of 1939), in: Commonwealth of Australia Numbered Acts,
O’Brien, “Citizenship,” 210.
Neumann, Across the Seas, 73.
Neumann, Across the Seas, 73.
Hasluck, The Government and the People, 595.
Neumann, Across the Seas, 73.
Lang, Fahrt ins Blaue, 49.
Norst and McBride, Austrians and Australia, 112.
Norst and McBride, Austrians and Australia, 138. For more information on return-migration from Australia, see: Ruth Balint, Joy Damousi and Sheila Fitzpatrick, eds., When Migrants Fail to Stay: New Histories on Departures and Migration (London: Bloomsbury, 2023).
Verboven recommends different categories for organizing a questionnaire for a prosopography, see Verboven, “Short Manual,” 55.
A total of 261 children are excluded in this statistic.
Except for some members of the British Armed Forces, who in some cases were naturalized earlier.
In that case, no place of residence was mentioned in the naturalization certificates.
Neumann, Across the Seas, 73.
Kwiet, “Re-Acculturation,” 44.
Wiemann, “German and Austrian Refugees,” 7–8.
Christoph Rass and Frank Wolff, “What is a Migration Regime? Genealogical Approach and Methodological Proposal,” in Was ist ein Migrationsregime? What is a Migration Regime?, ed. Andreas Pott, Christoph Rass, and Frank Wolff (Wiesbaden: Springer, 2018), 19–64, 21; Logemann, “Transatlantische Karrieren,” 86.
Katharina Prager, “Exemplary Lives: Thoughts on Exile, Gender and Life Writing,” in Exil and Gender i: Literature and the Press, ed. Charmian Brinson and Andrea Hammel (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 12.
Author’s translation: Harders and Lipphardt, “Kollektivbiographie,” 83.
Author’s translation: Harders and Lipphardt, “Kollektivbiographie,” 84.