3.2 - Confiscation of the Monastery by the National Socialists and its Further Development into an SS Property

Confiscation of the Monastery by the National Socialists and its Further Development into an SS Property

The National Socialist coup was received with great approval in Austria. The inhabitants of St. Lambrecht also welcomed the invading troops with great acclaim in March 1938, and flags were hung out of houses. In this agrarian community with fourteen hundred residents, the new system was above all expected to provide debt relief for the farmers. The rulers of the new regime however soon showed their true colours, and shortly after the Anschluss¹ they consistently took a very hard line against the Benedictine convent community. As early as 17 and 18 March around a hundred SA and SS soldiers, under command of subdistrict court judge Ingomar Held from Neumarkt, conducted a search of the premises, supposedly in order to confiscate a large number of weapons. It is likely that even then they were searching for letters and documents, thinking to find evidence of moral offences.² The abbot and the priests who were present in the abbey during the search were confined in the common room for two days. The search left an enormous havoc,³ obliging Viktorin Weyer, abbot at that time, to inform the Gestapo in Graz in a report. In this context he also demanded an investigation into this high-handed action. But instead of a ‘settling of this incident’ another search of the premises was made, probably by way of revenge. This time the abbot was charged with accusing the SS and SA men of theft.⁴ Again, the abbot informed the Gestapo at Graz of the events, which resulted in the fathers and the abbot being confronted with an indictment of slander and enmity against the state. The monastery was closed on 7 May 1938 and the provisional administration was transferred to Hubert Erhart, who was appointed by the military authorities.⁵

Hubert Erhart (foto van SS- persoonsbewijs) — Hubert Erhart (photo from SS identity card). (Bundesarchiv Berlin (BArch), Berlin)

Concerning this matter, a letter from Heinrich Müller, chief of Department IV in the Reichssicherheitshauptamt⁶ and leader of the Gestapo⁷, to the Reich Commissioner for reunification of Austria with the German Reich, states:

‘Because of serious transgressions in the Benedictine abbey St. Lambrecht and the Benedictine monastery Admont (Styria) the state police branch office Graz has confiscated the Benedictine abbey St. Lambrecht by order of 19-5-1938 and the Benedictine monastery Admont by order of 9-9-1938.

‘In accordance with §1 sub 2 of the Decree for the Confiscation in Austria of Property Belonging to Enemies of the People and State of 18-11-1938 (RGBI. I. S. 1620), I find that the aspirations of the Benedictine abbey St. Lambrecht and the Benedictine monastery Admont have been hostile to the public and state.

‘I request that the properties be confiscated for the benefit of the district of Styria, with the exception of the lots described in the added survey, that I wish to confiscate for the benefit of the Reich.

‘Based on §1 sub 3 of the order, I grant permission for these measures.

‘The state minister for food and agriculture will establish a model estate on the lots to be confiscated for the benefit of the Reich. Arrangements for the use of the lots to be confiscated for the benefit of the district of Styria have been made between SS-Sturmbannführer⁸ Mr Röhrich as manager of the Reichsverein für Volkspflege und Siedlerhilfe⁹ and the Gauleiter¹⁰ of Styria.

‘I request a report on carrying out the confiscation, by return of post. I request the Gauleiter of Styria be informed of the completed confiscation.’¹¹

The alleged mismanagement of the monastery and a hostile attitude to the state on the part of the convent were given as the chief arguments for the measures taken.

Moreover, the new rulers motivated their actions against the monastery and convent with such completely unproven accusations as illegal possession of arms, the smuggling abroad of precious art treasures and even with totally untenable accusations of alleged unbridled debauchery by the monks.¹² The abbot, Viktorin Weyer, did his utmost, including help from a lawyer, to cancel the dissolution of the monastery. These initiatives failed as the constitutional state existed only in name.¹³

Gauleiter Siegfried Uiberreither acted harshly against the Catholic Church and tried to break the influence of the Church by all and every means. The Benedictine monastery of St. Lambrecht was the first monastery in Austria to fall victim to the Nazi regime. Immediately after its dissolution the monastery of Admont met the same fate. It too was transferred to Erhart’s trust administration on 19 July 1938 and confiscated on 9 September, as shown by the above-mentioned protocol. In April 1940 the monasteries of Seckau and Vorau were added, and both also came under management of Hubert Erhart, by which means he considerably strengthened his position of power.¹⁴

On 7 May the management of the monastery of St. Lambrecht was handed over to the new Verwalter,¹⁵ Hubert Erhart, and the convent had to vacate the abbey. The convent was absolutely refused access, only two priests¹⁶ were at first allowed to stay in a few rooms of the abbey. Due to Erhart’s harassment, both priests finally left St. Lambrecht.¹⁷

In a letter to Heinrich Himmler, the Reichsführer of the SS in Berlin, the ‘agent of the State Commissioner for Private Enterprise’ in Vienna, Johannes Hardegg, wrote:

‘SS-Obersturmbannführer Hubert Erhart […] was appointed as Verwalter for the management of the property of the St. Lambrecht monastery, […] subject to your approval. This appointment seems to be all the more urgent due to there being an extremely dangerous situation regarding the property (the siphoning off of assets). Mr. Erhart is very well known in this district; he knows all the right people and without any doubt has the energy necessary to solve the difficult economic and political problems.’¹⁸

On 15 May 1938, four days after the official confiscation of the monastery, Erhart reported on the current situation regarding the assets of St. Lambrecht monastery. He also reported on the changes he intended to carry out regarding staff. He proposed SS-Oberscharführer Alois Liebhard as agriculture manager, NSKK-man Willibald Reiner¹⁹ for forestry and SS-Untersturmführer Hans Hösele as steward.

Erhart described the situation of the agricultural labourers of the monastery as follows, at the same time mentioning the beneficial impact on the social environment under his authority through the measures for improvement he had taken immediately:

‘I totally fail to understand how children can be fed, clothed and schooled from the wages they receive, which are not enough for the people to acquire even the tiniest things. It is therefore understandable that nearly all staff is unmarried, there are hardly any children, and the region is threatened with extinction. Apart from the wages, the following farmhands have also had to sleep in the stables. […] Moreover, the men have neither trunk nor cupboard, and decent living conditions are practically non-existent. The poor devils were treated worse than the livestock. I have immediately lodged these people in rooms, as far as possible. For the other four farmhands the housing will be ready in a few days. And to think they had packed six or seven farmhands together in a small room, while the gentlemen of the monastery lived in several rooms. The most incredible was the situation at the Schloss Lind property. There the farmhands were put up in the worst corner of the stable (a deep litter house), without light and hardly any air supply. I could mention hundreds of irrational, antisocial circumstances. None of the farmhands had a wardrobe, whereas in the abbey itself there is an enormous storage space with furniture. The very worst poverty to be seen was a herdsman from the monastery in the Steinschloss. I have seen labourers’ dwellings in the stable building where water dripped down from the ceiling and the stone walls, the bedding was wet through, and the walls of all dwellings were covered in mould and dirt. Most of the dwellings hadn’t been cleaned for years.

‘Food was insufficient […] On the large farms for some time now, the herdsmen have been treated very cruelly, like slaves, by being forced to cut the fodder for all the livestock with a hacking knife. This has so exhausted these men that they are not even conscious of the brutal treatment they receive.

‘Simply shocking was the moment when I had gathered all the staff to inform them about the take-over of the administration by the military authorities. I believe that among the staff there was no male or female worker whom I could call healthy. They stood there, totally emaciated, starved, bent or misshapen, in threadbare clothes that were virtually rags. Many had tears in their eyes when I told them that I intend to compensate the damage done to them to the best of my ability by raising wages, providing welfare, work according to capability, etc. Moreover, I paid them their April wages that were partly in arrears.’²⁰

In this report Erhart also mentioned the sudden decease of the former forester Kajetan Pölzl. He had committed suicide a few days before the confiscation of the monastery. The reasons might have been a severe depression, together with the fear of losing his job and so losing a steady income.²¹ Erhart appointed Willibald Reiner in his place, who in the course of the Nazi supremacy has risen to burgomaster and Volkssturmkommandant in St. Lambrecht. Reiner too, who counted as ‘second in line’ after Erhart, had great influence. In carrying out his duties he was assisted by secretary Käthe Pfeiffer and two office-clerks.²²

Erhart appears to have been dismayed by the miserable living conditions of the monastery’s agricultural personnel. Nevertheless, there is nothing to indicate that later on he was similarly affected by the situation of the female and male prisoners whom he constantly saw because of his frequent presence in the abbey. Erhart had absolutely no interest in the prisoners.²³ Allegedly the prisoners never saw Erhart between June 1942 and June 1943. This also suggests that the SS leaders, were definitely not concerned with the living conditions of the prisoners, only with organizing their labour.²⁴

Jagoschütz and Seiler have already clearly shown how harshly Hubert Erhart acted against the convent and evidently tried everything possible to get rid of the last members of the convent community still residing at St. Lambrecht. The monks finally spent the Nazi era in Mariazell, where also father Viktorin Weyer died in 1939.

Already in July 1938 Erhart asked for leave of absence. At this early point in time the ‘take-over’ of other monasteries between the ambitious SS-Verwalter and the Gestapo was an open-and-shut case. This situation proves Erhart’s purposeful activities which he had planned long beforehand, and which greatly enhanced his power. Moreover, the satisfaction Erhart derived from the work in his new sphere of authority is clear from his words. He saw this as compensation for the persecution suffered in the Ständestaat²⁵ and expressed this openly:

‘The leaders of the national farmers’ union in the district of Styria have requested me, in consultation with the Secret State Police in Graz, to take over management of the monastery at St. Lambrecht. I have accepted the position in good consultation with the SS sector. The property of 5400 hectares, with numerous collections, archives, libraries and certificates, representing a very great value, was confiscated by the Gestapo and a request for confiscation was submitted because of the abominable mismanagement and the social and moral evils. I gave a copy of my report on my work up until now to the Gestapo in Graz, SS sector I, and I request you to enclose my request for three months’ unpaid leave along with this report.

‘As I have settled well in the work for the administration of the monastery and am very familiar with the intrigues of the papists, the Gestapo in Graz later also requested me to take over the administration of other monasteries in Austria. This work is for me the best compensation for the persecution I have had to suffer under the Systemzeit in Austria.’²⁶

From 30 July to 1 August 1940 a business inspection was held in the monastery St. Lambrecht by the financial authorities in Graz. Up to that moment it had not been decided who would have the legal right to make use of the stolen goods:

‘The business was in the possession of the Benedictine monastery St. Lambrecht until 7 May 1938. The Secret State Police carried out confiscation on this date. A management company was founded. The head of the management company is SS-Obersturmführer Hubert Erhart at St. Lambrecht. Taking control of the properties was ordered on 15 November 1939. It has not yet been determined whether the property should go to the Reich – the Forestry commission – or to the district of Styria.’²⁷

The report also mentions contributions paid to SS-Obersturmbannführer Erhart, Käthe Pfeiffer,²⁸ forester Reiner and inspector Liebhart in December 1939. This also makes clear who in particular benefited from the favour of the acting administrator: in the first place he himself.

Finally, a binding lease was to be concluded between the district of Styria and the Reichsverein für Volkspflege und Siedlerhilfe. Purpose of this lease was the creation of a great number of ‘hereditary’ farms. These farms would be unsaleable, and therefore protected against forced sale. This propaganda was used with the intention of compelling the farmers to have an approving attitude towards National Socialism. This also explains why Heinzel, leader of the national farmers’ union, was committed to Hubert Erhart taking over the administration.²⁹

In a letter to SS-Gruppenführer Rodenbücher in Salzburg, the head of the Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt (RUSHA) of the SS in Berlin announced that

‘negotiations with the district of Styria on account of the leasing of the monasteries of Admont and St. Lambrecht [have] advanced so far that we will probably take over both these properties on 1-1-1940. Furthermore SS-Obersturmbannführer Hubert Erhart is proposed as administrator.

‘For the rest we shall begin setting up new farms as soon as possible, perhaps already in the spring. In the meantime, I first have to investigate the financial basis and possibilities.

‘As SS-Obersturmführer Erhart belongs to your main sector, I will of course be very grateful if you should agree to the transfer of Erhart to the RUSHA. His main position in this office would then be that of an SS leader. […] In the meantime, there is a possibility that Erhart will be conscripted into the army, which would not be very opportune at this moment. I therefore request you to immediately provide his temporary exemption from military service.’³⁰

Erhart, who had been declared disabled for forty percent because of a (healed) knee injury, was not conscripted to the Wehrmacht and resided as the administrator of the four confiscated monasteries in St. Lambrecht until 1945.

The lease contract between the Reichsgau of Styria as the lessor and the German Reichsverein für Volkspflege und Siedlerhilfe as the leaseholder, which finally was concluded only on 14 April 1942, came into force as retroactive from January 1941.

On the purpose and value of this action in the sense of National Socialist propaganda measures however, they had reached an agreement already in 1939:

‘Starting from the thought that an accumulation of properties held in mortmain does not harmonise with the common good of the national community, Styria and the SS-Reichsführer³¹ have agreed to return the confiscated monasteries of Admont and St. Lambrecht to the national community. To this end the Reichsgau Styria has leased the monasteries to the German Reichsverein für Volkspflege und Siedlerhilfe e.V., a foundation of the SS-Reichsführer, for a period of 99 years, on the reference date of 1 January 1941, with the intention and in the expectation that the SS-Reichsführer will administrate these estates in a manner conforming to the National Socialist idea and to the benefit of the population. In particular, new hereditary farms will be set up on these properties, while existing farms will be combined and enlarged.

‘The SS-Reichsführer and Reichsstatthalter³² in Styria have personally made themselves familiar with this idea and on 27-4-1941 explicitly approved the lease contract that had already been made in 1939, on the condition that the transfer and take-over of the lease object will be regarded as having been effected on 1-1-1941.’³³

The art treasures and archives of the monastery, as well as the collections and libraries, were excluded from the lease.

‘Furthermore, it was laid down in writing that as a guarantee for the continuity of the centre for biological education […] buildings, parts of buildings and pieces of land will be excluded from the lease.’³⁴

Himmler kept the monastery’s museum for folklore for himself.³⁵ This collection of Peter Hanf, consisting of folkloristic objects pertaining to agricultural traditions, was in good hands. Dutch female prisoners worked at cleaning the museum, under supervision of Lore Kröll, who had been appointed head housekeeper from June 1942 in the abbey that had now been turned into an SS property.³⁶

These buildings later served various purposes. For example, at the beginning of 1944 the Publikationsstelle Wien³⁷ was transferred to the rooms of the SS property at St. Lambrecht. Among other things it was the duty of this institution, which stemmed from the Südostdeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft der Hochschullehrer,³⁸ to do scientific research in the fields of geography and the history of Southern Europe.³⁹

In the rotunda, the pavilion in the middle of the vegetable garden area, there was an office set up for the drawing of maps for Southern and Southeast Europe.⁴⁰

In 1943 the concentration camp for women was established on the ground floor of the southern wing, the present wing of the fathers. This wing, which was closed off by a wrought-iron gate, with barred windows already in place, was very suitable as a prison. The barred windows at present still form a silent witness of the women’s concentration camp at St. Lambrecht, as one of the few authentic traces.

Moreover, the Lehrerinnenbildungsanstalt (LBA)⁴¹ from Kainbach near Graz moved to St. Lambrecht in September 1944, because the school building there was turned into a hospital. This school existed for exactly a year and was discontinued in September 1945. In this training centre, under leadership of schutzstaffeRudolf Hübler, a staff of 10 teachers taught about 30 students. Franz Ziegler acted as the caretaker.⁴² Members of the training institute for female teachers took care of the convent garden.⁴³ For that matter, the female prisoners, who also had to work in the convent garden, made no mention of any contacts with either the teaching staff or the pupils of the LBA. The work in the garden took place at different times to avoid social contacts with the civilian population.

When the wartime activities spread to the district of Styria all students from the non-occupied regions were sent back to their parents. Shortly before the end of the war in May 1945 the school administration gave marching orders, and the students were transferred to the English and American occupied territories. Shortly before the discontinuation of the school, on 1 September 1945, the contracts of all the staff ended. Management of the abbey’s inventory, which had been kept in the board room of the training institute up until then, was handed over to the administrator of the monastery, Rischanek.⁴⁴ Hans Wotke remembers the transfer as regards the relocation of eyewitness reports:

‘I came to St. Lambrecht with the LBA in the autumn of 1944. In the imperial hall I saw various learning materials and textbooks of the school. As far as I know, these things were transferred to the convent, or to the board at that time.’⁴⁵

There had been a search conducted for these eyewitness reports in July 1946, but they had possibly disappeared with this change of board.

Following the explanation of the functions of the various buildings, the situation of the monastery being used by the SS before it was turned into a concentration camp, will be dealt with further.

In the spring of 1941 Erhart sent a budget of the SS estate to Hans Hohberg.⁴⁶ A lively correspondence followed.

Seiler interprets this superabundant information to Hohberg as evidence of a great interest in ‘Erhart’s monasteries’ by the highest SS circles. This was partly because the SS Reichsführer,⁴⁷ Heinrich Himmler, accompanied by Hans Hohberg, auditor and economic adviser at the Deutsche Wirtschaftsbetriebe (DWB)⁴⁸, personally paid a visit to Erhart at St. Lambrecht on 26 April 1941.⁴⁹ It is said, by the way, that Himmler did not stay on the SS estate but stayed as a guest in Erhart’s own home.⁵⁰

On 4 May, shortly after Himmler’s visit, Erhart addressed a handwritten, very personal letter to Oswald Pohl:

‘Dear Gruppenführer,

‘The great, and for my work, decisive days have come to a happy conclusion through the acknowledgement by the Reichsführer and your letter.

‘Gruppenführer, I hardly know how to thank you for all your good companionship!

‘When I had to leave my country to escape the gallows as one of the SA officers in the Juliputsch of 1934 and arrived stateless and without resources in the Empire with my family, with my companion Kammerhofer […] and was received there with great ingratitude, then it was the Schutzstaffel⁵¹ who through SS-Gruppenf. [sic] Rodenbücher stated that the crime committed against me by the SA would be redressed by the Schutzstaffel. Thus, we were included in the Schutzstaffel and could cooperate in the advancement of the Third Reich. We have never forgotten this.

‘As a lover of the forests I […] especially suffered from homesickness. Therefore, I requested discharge as an SS officer immediately after the Anschluss of the Ostmark and, supported by the leader of the national farmers’ union Heinzl, took over the administration of the monastery at St. Lambrecht. I then also took over the monasteries of Admont, Seckau and Vorau. The enormous properties with the delightful forests and ancient cultural heritage of the Ostmark could in my opinion only be assigned to the Schutzstaffel, because an order without possessions will end up being lifeless, dependent and therefore short-lived.

‘I had to fend for myself for nearly 3 years. I reconstructed the degenerated farms, tried again and again, with moderate success, to interest the Schutzstaffel in the properties, warded off the many interested parties, all the while struggling to act as quietly, politely and harmoniously as possible. Until finally there came help, from you, Gruppenführer.

‘Therewith my self-imposed duty had come to an end.

‘If on top of this I should succeed in helping my fellow-countrymen with the properties of the former monasteries, in offering the SS soldiers places for study, schooling and recreation and in giving you, Gruppenführer, more joy than worries, then I shall be happy.

‘Heil Hitler! Your Erhart.’⁵²

Brief van Hubert Erhart aan Oswald Pohl — Letter from Hubert Erhart to Oswald Pohl. (Bundesarchiv Berlin (BArch), Berlin)

Erhart’s special affinity with the Schutzstaffel is clearly shown in this letter. The SS would redress ‘the crime committed against him by the SA’. The ‘compensation’ at a later stage may have involved the assignment of concentration camp refugees as labour slaves to the SS estate at St. Lambrecht. By their exploitation the economic position of the agricultural enterprise was strengthened and Erhart’s struggle for power was speeded up.

Regarding the events of this ‘eventful´ spring of 1941, Seiler is of the opinion that the founding of the settlement in the Eben area had already been decided between Pohl and Erhart. According to him it had been decided in advance that concentration camp prisoners should serve as labourers.⁵³

The afore-cited letter furthermore suggests that the plans to partly change the landed property into ‘hereditary farms’ in order to ‘help his fellow-countrymen’, must then still have been sincere.

Hohberg quickly responded to the letter addressed to Pohl. He stated that Erhart had pleased the Gruppenführer very much with his missive and that a date had been determined for a discussion in Berlin on 20 May 1941. In this letter Hohberg used the opportunity to thank Erhart for his hospitality with the words: ‘A holiday in the Alps is always quite an experience for those of us who reside in the lowlands.’⁵⁴ The visit to St. Lambrecht may have been a personal inspection to get acquainted with the conditions at the SS estate. About a year later Hohberg sent a staff member to St. Lambrecht, SS-Untersturmführer⁵⁵ Riecks, who had to draw up a financial plan for the Reichsverein für Volkspflege und Siedlerhilfe.

‘Het aangename met het nuttige verenigen’: vakantie in het concentratie- kamp St.-Lambrecht — ‘Combining business with pleasure’: holidays in the concentration camp St. Lambrecht (Bundesarchiv Berlin (BArch), Berlin)

Under Erhart the monastery also became a holiday resort for SS members who went hunting in the ‘delightful forests’. Requests from Berlin for permission to go hunting in the mountains of Styria regularly reached Erhart:

‘The lawyer at my head office, Will Haaga, has requested permission to shoot a deer, chamois or grouse in the hunting grounds of the estates of Admont or St. Lambrecht in the course of this or next year […] Should Mr Haaga come to you with these wishes, I request you to provide him with the opportunity of going hunting.’⁵⁶

Erhart furthermore conducted a lively correspondence with Rudolf Querner, chief superintendent of police in Vienna, which also involved invitations to the hunt.⁵⁷ Allegedly guests for the hunt frequently stayed at St. Lambrecht.⁵⁸ During the hunting season there was often haunch of venison, also for the civilian workers and staff members. Often there was so much game brought in that it was canned because there was much more than required.⁵⁹ Erhart was a ‘commanding figure, tall and broad, a real hunter’,⁶⁰ according to the description of the kitchen help.⁶¹ The Verwalter and Willibald Reiner only exchanged their hunting costumes for the SS uniform when ‘distinguished visitors’ arrived.⁶² And this must often have happened, as the guest rooms, that were situated in the present manager´s wing, were usually occupied. Tiled stoves warmed the rooms, partly from the hallway. In the beginning the caretaker of the monastery, Klösch, was assigned to this duty. Later several female prisoners were given this chore.⁶³ Lore Kröll was responsible for refreshments for these ‘esteemed guests´,⁶⁴ and among other things served them meals.

The female prisoners too came into contact with the guests. They were in the abbey most of the time as they had to clean the guest rooms.⁶⁵ From mid-1943 onwards female prisoners served the holiday guests in striped camp clothes. Physical contact between the groups was certainly not desirable. Still, it doubtlessly did happen.⁶⁶

From 1942 to 1945 the number of labourers and staff members grew constantly. There were now 220 persons to be cared for. To this end two kitchens were equipped with a common kitchen range.⁶⁷ At first male prisoners cooked for about 100 camp prisoners at one end, while civilian female servants did the same work for the care of the SS guards and the civilian personnel. When in the spring of 1943 the female camp prisoners from the women’s concentration camp Ravensbrück arrived at St. Lambrecht, they took over the work of the male prisoners in the kitchen.⁶⁸

In the winter of 1942/1943 construction was begun for a higher situated villa for Verwalter Erhart. This work was done by male prisoners from the concentration camp that had by then been in existence for six months.

Under harsh winter conditions the prisoners had to begin digging in the frozen soil. Two children from the Hillberger family at play in the construction pit came to grief and could only be recovered dead.⁶⁹ Unlike the settlement in Eben, the Verwalter-villa was not completed during the ‘Third Reich’.⁷⁰

The cellar of the abbey served among other things as a warehouse for stolen goods. It was ‘crammed with wines, spirits, clothing – whatever one may imagine’.⁷¹When the English occupying forces moved into the rooms that had formerly been inhabited by SS guards, the British Army confiscated the stolen goods as being ‘German military goods’.⁷²

Next →

3.2 - Confiscation of the Monastery by the National Socialists and its Further Development into an SS Property

Confiscation of the Monastery by the National Socialists and its Further Development into an SS Property

Table of Contents

About