Coca-Colonization and the Cold War: The Cultural Mission of the United States and Austria After the Second World War Paperback – December 7, 2007

My friend and former professor wrote this book! I remember when it was just a concept/idea in his head in Salzburg Austria. I Will add more sp
äter.

For any WWII buff out there who is running into fatigue on the subject this is a great read. Although it is a little acedemic it is never the less, facinating. Also it is more about the US and the propaganda campain in austria during the ten year occupation of that country after the war then about austria itself. I think the subject of the aftermath of the war and the realignment of countries and the fight for the hearts and minds needs more attention, this is a great start.

Wagnleitner has a straightforward formula to validate the existence of cultural imperialism in Europe: he hits the reader with example after example of American influence in post-WWIII Austria. What is Americanization? Wagnleitner has no clear definition for this slippery term, but he proposes first off that we should think of America as a cultural child of European or Western civilization. Thus what we are in fact viewing is a Europeanization of the world with an American flavor. "America" as an idea, he argues, was created by Europe's (often idealist or unreal) perceptions of the new world. It is impossible, therefore, to speak of American or European culture without thinking of them in relation to each other, in a process of identification through comparison. Modernism is capitalism, Wagnleitner explains, and Americanization is a description of modern capitalism and consumerism.In 1945, Austrian culture, supported by its own institutions like the Catholic Church, was being torn by three outside forces: American capitalism and culture, remnants of Nazi ideology, and Soviet Communism. By 1955, the American culture was victorious in this struggle. But how did this come about? Prior to 1945, Austria and the U.S. had few direct cultural connections. True, between 1902-1911, the leading immigrant group in America hailed from the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary. But the U.S. army, "marching to the rhythm of swing music" (ix) and American culture in general was foreign to Austria.Naturally, the fact that Austria was a U.S. protectorate affected the process of cultural transference, but how? Wagnleitner argues that cultural imperialism was real and that it was directed by U.S. government interaction in Austria. Austrians were attracted to the free market and consumer goods of America, but it took a special U.S. cultural campaign to bring about such a capitalist and consumer revolution. The U.S. needed to expand its influence in the region and it did so through mental coercion. Whether it was labeled information, disinformation, or propaganda, it was all the same thing: cultural transference as a one-way street, with the U.S. teaching the world.The CIA used Communism as a threatening alternative to propagate U.S. ideas. To be successful in Austria, the U.S. needed to pose itself as the best choice in the cultural cold war. Without the threat of Soviet Communism, another threat would have had to have been invented. But a Soviet cultural alternative was unlikely. U.S. music, film, and radio were too attractive and the U.S. enjoyed a significant market superiority. American soldiers had consumer products and could offer schoolchildren chocolate or gum. The Soviets had neither, and didn't even know how to chew gum. Through the Marshall Plan, Americans could literally feed the Austrians. Food could change the heart and the mind and products were easier to digest than information alone. In Germany, the U.S. occupation force pushed a strong re-education campaign to propagate American ideals. In Austria, the softer, more psychological and less physical war for the hearts and minds was called "reorientation." Thus, the U.S. economy, through promoting its culture and its values, was on it way to "global hegemony" (65)Gradually, as the threat of Soviet interference waned, the process became more focused on promoting U.S. culture rather than rejecting the alternatives. In a process of de-Nazification, schools were modernized. Through Fullbright grants, cultural exchanges, and educational opportunities for teachers in Austria, the U.S. built a core of teachers trained in U.S. culture. This was all part of the U.S. plan to reorient the minds of Austrians. The U.S. military also opened dozens of Amerika Hauses across the country. These were reading rooms for teaching about America. Although operating in a small radius, an American Haus was effective at drawing in a crowd of future societal leaders by offering lectures, photography exhibits, books, and films. The program served millions of visitors with little cost. The Amerika Haus served as an information center and distribution point for American books and writings which promoted America as the land of modern science.Austrians generally opened their arms to American economic interference. On the cultural front, however, Austrians were less sure about American influence. Between 1945 and 1955 Americans controlled a significant portion of Austrian media. In a reciprocal process, the media both reported and created public opinion. Through various forms of media, the U.S. hoped to convert a wide audience. American control meant all newspapers were officially organs of democracy. Paradoxically, control limited this democratic voice of the people. Party papers were weakened and newspapers were checked for articles that showed the U.S. in a bad light. The U.S. also trained journalists and photographers. Newspapers were read until they fell to pieces. Austrians could not get enough stories about American way of life and standard of living. Radio was important for the spreading of U.S. culture because it was broadcast and not limited by political borders. One U.S. signal was so powerful (4 million watts) that no Russian interference could block it. Despite Austrian complaints about commercials and uncultured American music, the U.S.-supported Rot-Weiss-Rot station proved more popular than the Communist-influenced Austrian RAVAG station. U.S. music, however disliked by some, generally older Austrians, proved to be one of the most important cultural elements of U.S. bureaucratic ambitions. Both newspapers and radio stations were owned by the public, however, as a testament to the socialist currents in Austria.A more difficult sell in Austria was the conviction that America had a high culture. Since American soldiers did not epitomize the avant-garde of society, Austrians at first had little exposure to American drama and arts. But the U.S. military controlled operas, concert halls and theaters. These venues filled a gap left after the wartime destruction of Austrian and German production companies. Like with newspapers and radio, the U.S. tried to conceal its censorship of this medium. On the one hand, Americans struggled to win over the Austrians in this cultural regard. Austrians were critical of the plays and still felt Americans were cultural inferiors. But American music drew the Austrian youth. If propaganda needed music, the U.S. found it in an unlikely source: jazz, rock n' roll and other forms of young rebelliousness. In effect, "serious music" could make no inroads where rock `n roll could. Wagnleinter concludes that Austria did not lead Europe in the adoption of U.S. culture, but it did accept it willingly. While much culture entered Austria via channels in West Germany, much also originated in the U.S. and was a testimony to U.S. presence in the region and U.S. forces shaping Austrian cultural life.Further theoretical questions in this work are left unexplored. Wagnleitner, perhaps displaying a socialist stance common to his country, walks the line between Marxism and Capitalism. For example, he writes "Those who control the means of production and distribution can themselves actually communicate with the masses, but the masses do not have the opportunity to communicate with the producers." (53) With this he seems to be insinuating that Austrians only received U.S. culture without shaping the sources from which that culture emanated. However, most of the book seems support the opposite. Austrians indeed, through their own actions, affected the course by which American culture entered their country. Wagnleitner also confuses democracy with equality when he says that U.S. popular culture is democratic, but "the frequent artificiality of its products and the horizontal and vertical channels of distribution in few hands exemplify its `undemocratic' nature." (54) Democracy is a political system, not a way to manage the economy. And lastly, is "freedom of want" (54) truly a liberal tradition or a neo-Marxist critique of capitalist society?

Wagnleitner does a great job of taking the reader through Western Austria's change from an ex-Nazi state to a miniature US "wannabe." The author also discusses the discrepancy between the percieved American culture and actual American culture. He furthers the discussion by examining the role that cultural imperialism has played in the history of the world. Overall, it was a great look at an issue which remained a hot one in Europe for decades (and still is in France, of course).