TRANS Nr. 17: 1.11. - Felix W. Tweraser: “Our Man in Vienna”

As editor of Forum: Österreichische Blätter für kulturelle Freiheit between 1954 and 1965, Friedrich Torberg was encouraged by his American patrons to publish original work about U.S. politics and culture. Forum was one of many journals supported world-wide by the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a Cold-War era foundation set up to support media efforts on behalf of the West, and funded clandestinely by the CIA.(1) The Congress facilitated and strictly oversaw the content of its journals; Torberg made use of such original work pertaining to the U.S.—some of which he translated himself—that was submitted in a pool system to the editors of all Congress journals. The journal editors were to function as ambassadors for American culture, to acquaint a new generation of readers with a wide variety of American writing. To the degree that this occurred at all in Forum, it did so with a large dose of Torbergian ambivalence regarding such a trans-cultural project. More often than not, Torberg filled the cultural pages of Forum with work and criticism from the leading lights of turn-of-the-century Viennese creativity.(2)

As a citizen of the Austro-Hungarian empire, Torberg was socialized in a political environment that, as a survival strategy, was transnational and multi-ethnic. His early career as a writer and journalist in Vienna and Prague during the interwar years can be seen as somewhat typical for citizens of the successor states who looked with some longing at the best aspects of the monarchy, particularly those that had been lost to nationalist movements. Unable to return to his home in Vienna in 1938 because he was Jewish, Torberg experienced the years of the second world war in exile in Prague, Zürich, and Paris, where he joined the expatriate Czech army, before landing in Hollywood, where he worked as a screenwriter under contract to Warner Brothers, and finally New York, where he worked for Time magazine. Upon returning to Vienna in 1951, he became one of the most influential arbiters of literary taste and political culture in post-war Austria, working first for the daily Kurier and the radio station Sender Rot-Weiß-Rot, which were principally supported by the American occupation forces (he maintained his American citizenship after his return), before becoming the editor of Forum. It was as editor of Forum that Torberg developed his unique anti-Communist strategy: advocacy of political reform modeled on the institutions of American democracy, combined with cultural practice that emphasized lines of continuity to the artistic innovation that characterized turn-of-the-century Vienna. In the following, I will describe Torberg’s encounter with American popular culture and politics during his exile in California, with a particular eye on how this experience informed his editorship of Forum, that is, what aspects of American politics and culture were commented upon by Torberg or other contributors to Forum, which American authors were published, and which artists’ and musicians’ work was analyzed.

Torberg’s work at Forum has became inextricably linked to the Congress for Cultural Freedom, an organization founded by prominent Western intellectuals in Berlin in 1950, and whose mission was to influence cultural and intellectual life around the world and to promote Western interests in the Cold War context. More concretely, the Congress established journals, funded academic conferences and organizations, and promoted its presence through mass media, all with the idea of influencing intellectuals and opinion leaders on both sides of the Iron Curtain. In 1952, Torberg began negotiating with representatives of the Congress in Paris, primarily its Executive Secretary Michael Josselson, to establish a Congress journal in Vienna; what resulted was Forum, whose first issue appeared in January 1954, and which, under Torberg’s editorship until 1965, became the leading publication of its kind in Austria. (Other prominent Congress journals in Europe included Encounter, edited by Stephen Spender, Der Monat, edited by Melvin Lasky, and Preuves, edited by Francois Bondy.) Torberg, in fact, used the journal to aggressively promote an idealized version of American democracy, which in practice, at least, meant a lively mix of opinion that was against totalitarianism (and more specifically, its apologists in the West) in all its historical forms and contexts. Torberg’s polemical style made many enemies, and his unforgiving approach to those he perceived as Communist sympathizers drew many reprimands from his bosses in the Congress.(3) Few contemporaries and historians have taken more than a cursory look at Torberg’s importance as a transitional figure in the formation of Austrian democracy in the Second Republic, and he became a convenient lightning-rod for criticism from the left, particularly among the generation of the 1968 student protests.(4)

Torberg’s entry into the U.S. was made possible by the American Film Fund and U.S. PEN-Club, which designated him one of the “top 10 anti-Fascist writers”, and which, as with Heinrich Mann, Alfred Doeblin, et al. provided $100/wk. screenwriting contracts with Warner Brothers and MGM—Torberg was at Warner Brothers. He was by most measures an outsider in Hollywood (1940-1944), but became much more of a political insider in New York (1944-1951), where he was recruited to work on the rollout of a German edition of Time magazine. Torberg was like most émigrés an ardent FDR supporter, responded to his evocation of an America not unlike the later Habsburg empire in its tolerance and support of ethnic and religious minorities. Some interesting contradictions from Torberg’s Hollywood years help to clarify his editorial decisions at Forum.

If Torberg was drawn to anything characteristically American during his stay in the U.S., it was popular culture: the diners, cars—he drove a ’35 Ford—boxing, Damon Runyan (“Guys and Dolls”), and B movies were favorites. The Runyanesque text of a fake business card Torberg composed on a diner napkin shows linguistically sophisticated reference to the language of Tin Pan Alley and gives voice to his own marginal existence in Hollywood:

During his year at Warner Brothers, Torberg was creatively blocked, but after he was fired, and in a period of two years, he produced arguably his best creative work: the novella “Mein ist die Rache” (1943, Pacific Press), a formally and thematically interesting meditation on anti-Semitism, life in the camps, and the guilt felt by a survivor, and whose frame is set on the docks of Hoboken, New Jersey; some interesting, if conventional poetry, for instance “Sehnsucht nach Alt-Aussee,” “Kaddisch 1943,” and “Seder 1944;” the screenplay for Voice in the Wind (Arthur Ripley, 1944); and the bulk of the work on the novel Hier bin ich, mein Vater (Fischer, 1948), set in the Jewish underground in post-Anschluss Vienna. In addition, Torberg was shopping the manuscript for his novel Auch das war Wien, written principally during his exile in Zürich and Paris, which described with great immediacy Vienna in the year before the Anschluss, and which was published posthumously in 1984 before being filmed by Wolfgang Glück as 38 (1985).

On a personal level, Torberg was at the fringes of “polite exile society;” he was close to Franz and Alma Mahler-Werfel, serving as Werfel’s driver for a time, Marlene Dietrich, and Gisela Werbezirk (a stage actress from Vienna, credited with glossing Hollywood as “Purkersdorf with palm trees”—Purkersdorf is a leafy suburb of Vienna with one of Austria’s largest private mental hospitals), but was only very occasionally at Salka Viertel’s salon. Here he liked to provoke Brecht—indeed, some fairly compelling evidence points to Torberg being on the FBI’s payroll as a casual observer of other émigrés at this time.(6) Torberg was a generation younger than most of the other Hollywood émigrés, which contributed to his feeling of isolation, also with respect to a specific reading public: “Die Generation, der ich angehöre und über die ich geschrieben habe, hat keine Kontinuität, und hat spätestens 1938 die letzten Reste ihres gemeinsamen Nenners eingebüßt. Sie hat auch keinen Übergang und keine Nachfolge. Denn von der deutsch sprechenden und deutsch lesenden ‘jungen Generation’ nach diesem Krieg habe ich keine Vorstellung. Ich weiß gar nicht, was das ist.”(7)

Torberg’s editorial activity at Forum, and, indeed, much of his creative work after the war such as the Tante Jolesch books and the novel Süsskind von Trimberg, function metaphorically as bridges, establishing continuity with a communal history that in many ways came to an end between 1938 and 1945. Seen in this light, then, it is not surprising that Torberg filled Forum’s pages less with the latest and greatest work from the United States—something the Congress repeatedly encouraged him to do—than with things that would awaken a historical consciousness about the unique ferment of late Habsburg culture and its continued reflection in Austria’s First Republic. Such an editorial policy necessarily neglected new artistic impulses and creativity coming from within Austria, as well.

From its first issue of January 1954 Forum bore Torberg’s unmistakable stamp. In his introductory editorial, Torberg stressed the journal’s commitment to diversity and craft: “Forum will nicht nur den Nachweis erbringen, daß man auf sehr vielfältige Weise für die Demokratie sein kann … sondern es ist auch altmodisch genug, auf handwerkliche und stilistische Sorgfalt einigen Wert zu legen.”(8) While such an approach was certainly consistent with the other journals supported by the Congress, over the coming years Torberg more and more frequently clashed with his financial and philosophical backers about the best way to promote democracy in Austria. During the eleven years in which Torberg edited Forum, a lively dialogue took place, in which Torberg insisted on tailoring his journal to what he perceived to be the proclivities of his Viennese readership—here he fashioned much of the tone and content in the tradition of Karl Kraus’s Die Fackel—while representatives of the Paris headquarters repeatedly tried to bring him back to the more internationalist, forward-looking, and trans-cultural course preferred by the CCF.

Forum had been conceived among the Congress’s leadership in Paris, initially, to be one more among the many journals of diverse opinion it supported, and which, while carrying the Congress’s name on the masthead, would appeal to educated readers throughout the German-speaking world. Torberg, on the other hand, wanted a publication with more of a local focus. Michael Josselson, the general secretary of the Congress, repeatedly admonished Torberg for trying to imitate Karl Kraus’s Die Fackel. While Torberg leaned towards just such a journal of opinion based primarily in and on Viennese cultural and political life, and in practice approximated the manic one-man style of Kraus, Josselson, and the others connected to the Congress offices in Paris, tried to steer Torberg on a more practical course that would dovetail with the original, less polemic, version of its mission, as here in a typical exchange:

As the easternmost Congress journal, Forum was also supposed to function as a bridge between dissident intellectuals behind the Iron Curtain and operatives in the West, and thus in its political pages was supposed to focus on movements and events in the East Bloc over and above the Austrian scene. It served this purpose quite well during the Hungarian revolution of 1956, for instance, in which Forum Kulturhilfe established a broad network to assist Hungarian dissidents to relocate in the West. In spite of these differences with its benefactors, Torberg built Forum into a major media force in Austria, with the widest circulation of any journal of its type, and used his position as editor to wage a polemical war against Communists and fellow travelers in the Austrian cultural and political spheres. His polemics against Brecht, for instance, contributed to the decision by state-run theatres not to produce the playwright's works during the 1950s and early 60s.(10)

In two letters to officials at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, Torberg described his journal’s contents and target audience in detail:

Torberg was also quick to stress Forum’s intellectual parentage and the market niche it filled in Austria:

Thus, Torberg’s conception of the journal did not deviate in the main from the Congress’s priorities, yet in practice Forum was to become in its cultural pages an increasingly conservative and locally oriented endeavor, which was against the wishes of the Congress, if not its reading public.

Forum, in its cultural pages, did little to promote particularly innovative artistic movements in Austria, including the authors of what would become Forum Stadtpark, the avant-garde performance artists of the Wiener Aktionisten, and the concrete poetry of authors of the Wiener Gruppe such as Ernst Jandl. The artists of the Austrian avant-garde shared an inclination to question and make more transparent the supposedly natural social hierarchies in Austria, and ironically this was of a piece with the Congress and CIA efforts to promote free-rhyming poetry, serial music, jazz, or the actionist painting of the Abstract Expressionists, evidence, to them, of U.S. vitality and creativity in the face of ‘Old Europe’.(13) Torberg was not predisposed to support such a cultural policy, choosing instead to try to resurrect a culture that, in his view, had been cut off too soon. However quixotic Torberg’s position might seem in retrospect, it dovetailed nicely with the emerging Sozialpartnerschaft, which institutionalized harmony over debate, and, as Robert Menasse has argued, promoted cultural practices that did not threaten existing hierarchies.(14)

While representatives of Congress headquarters tried to bring him into line with its general worldview, Torberg continued to pursue his Vienna-centered agenda at Forum. His editorial policies deviated consistently from two fundamental aspects of Congress policy: he polemicized against fellow travelers when gentle persuasion was desired, and he developed a blind spot with respect to a vibrant artistic avant-garde, using the cultural part of the journal instead to nostalgically conjure the past glories of artistic ferment in the Empire to be those of the ‘true Austria’. To be sure, such a policy of ignoring the avant-garde did not distinguish Forum from most other Austrian publications that reported on cultural events.

The Congress allowed each editor a high degree of autonomy, and each journal developed according to the proclivities of its editor—Stephen Spender at Encounter, Francois Bondy at Preuves, and Melvin Lasky at Der Monat—yielding a quite diverse group of publications. According to Bondy, “I don’t think Encounter was supposed to be like Preuves, which itself changed over the years. All the magazines sponsored by the Congress were quite dissimilar, - according to the personality of the editors, and even politically not uniform at all. Tempo Presente was distinctly left-wing, Forum in Vienna rather rightwing.”(15) Still, the most pronounced philosophical differences between the Congress’s brain trust in Paris—Michael Josselson, the Congress’s executive secretary, Manes Sperber, Nikolas Nabakov, the director the cultural program, and Bondy—and any editor in the field manifested themselves in reaction to Forum. After one of many reprimands from Paris for the tone and priorities of Forum, Torberg argued to Bondy, for instance, that local conditions in Austria demanded a less nuanced and more Krausian approach:

While the bulk of Forum’s reporting—particularly in its cultural pages—focused on developments in Austria, Torberg was still quite selective in what he chose to print: minimal reference to subversive or Marxist tendencies in Austrian cultural life, but maximum exposure of what had thrived before 1938.

It is surprising, then, to find that Torberg actually published very little that specifically pertained to the United States, its politics, or its culture, and that the majority of the materials he did publish were written by Austrian émigrés in the United States. The following is a sampling of U.S.-themed articles and glosses that Torberg published in Forum during the second half of the 1950s, the period in which the Congress for Cultural Freedom’s leadership took the most interest in its contents. (The CCF dropped its support in 1961, after which it was published by the Hans Deutsch Verlag in Vienna.) Torberg published his own review of Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible, which was staged in 1954 at Vienna’s Burgtheater, but used much of the review as a pretext to make general statements about Cold-War politics.(17) Though occasionally a differentiated look at American political culture and philosophy appeared, the vast majority of the political pages dealt with Austria.(18) Torberg translated the work of the American art critic Clement Greenberg, who had become a champion of the Abstract Expressionists and who was instrumental in promoting the newly founded Museum of Modern Art in New York’s efforts to reach a European public.(19) For a comparison of Austrian and American approaches to theater, Torberg turned to two writers most familiar to the Viennese audience, Ernst Lothar and Heinrich Schnitzler, who contributed essays about the difficulties of staging Austrian plays in the original language (Lothar) and about theatrical training at American universities and in community theaters (Schnitzler), things quite foreign to the Austrian experience.(20) Forum’s musical correspondent for things American was the composer Ernst Krenek, another Austrian émigré who settled in Southern California, who reported on the summer festivals and trends in classical music.(21)

The promotion of artistic innovation became a dominant thread in Congress policy throughout Europe. Vienna, as perhaps more of a geographical than spiritual front in the Cold War, existed almost literally in the rubble and shadow of its former Imperial glory, and those émigrés like Torberg who had internalized the trans-cultural aspects of the Empire were naturally inclined, upon their return, to fill the intellectual vacuum that existed in Vienna with references to this past, and, in the absence of anyone else doing so, stress lines of continuity to the specifically Jewish contributions to late Imperial culture. Nevertheless, the Vienna of the 1950s and 60s was soon to produce its own avant-garde in arts and letters, one that challenged, innovated, and questioned existing practices and hierarchies in a fashion similar to what had occurred at the turn of the century, yet Friedrich Torberg, in a unique position to promote such innovations, cast a blind eye towards this local avant-garde’s representatives and works, preferring instead to recall a bygone age. Torberg’s cultural conservatism—here one finds the most trenchant irony in his project, perhaps—also went against the repeatedly expressed wishes of his benefactors in the Congress for Cultural Freedom and the CIA, who indeed wanted just such a vigorous promotion of a creative avant-garde in the West, one that might naturally flow from a description of artistic and cultural life originating in the U.S., even articulating this as a particular goal of U.S. foreign policy. Torberg would have none of it, using Forum instead to conjure the spirit-world that haunts Europe to this day.

(1) On the Congress for Cultural Freedom and its role in Cold-War Europe, see, in a more apologetic mode, Peter Coleman, The Liberal Conspiracy: The Congress for Cultural Freedom and the Struggle for the Mind of Postwar Europe (New York: Free Press, 1989); more recently, and in a more critical mode, see Frances Stoner-Saunders, Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (New York: New Press, 1999), and the more differentiated work of Michael Hochgeschender, Freiheit in der Offensive: der Kongress für kulturelle Freiheit und die Deutschen (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1998), and especially, Giles Scott-Smith, The Politics of Apolitical Culture (London: Routledge, 2002). A good—though based more on reading of primary than secondary materials—see Ann-Marie Corbin, “Die österreichische Identität in Friedrich Torbergs Forum.” Österreich in Geschichte und Literatur 46.1 (2002): 2-16, and “Friedrich Torberg: Exil und Rückkehr,” in: Jörg Thunecke, ed. Echo des Exils: Das Werk emigrierter österreichischer Schriftsteller nach 1945. Wuppertal: Arco, 2006: 362-74.

(2) Steven Beller, A Concise History of Austria (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006), p. 265, puts it succinctly: “High culture remained important to Austrian identity, but in a conservative, safe version. Even when Friedrich Torberg, a returned Jewish émigré, set up the literary magazine Forum in 1954 with CIA money, he ended up playing the Austrian game, emphasizing an anti-avant garde model of culture, and exercising severe self-restraint over the Nazi past.”

(3)See Corbin, “Die österreichische Identität …”, 16.

(4)The degree to which the latent anti-Semitism on the Austrian Left contributed to the formation of such conventional wisdom on Torberg is an interesting question that goes beyond the scope of this essay. On U.S.-Austrian bilateral relations in the early Cold War, see Oliver Rathkolb, Washington ruft Wien: US-Großmachtpolitik und Österreich 1953-1963. (Vienna: Böhlau, 1997), esp. 264-69.

5)See Frank Tichy, Friedrich Torberg: ein Leben in Widersprüchen. Salzburg: Otto Müller, 1995.

(6) See Kurt Palm, “Torberg und “the subject,” Die Presse 7 Feb. 1998, p. 4, also collected in his Brecht im Kofferraum (Vienna: Löcker, 2006).

(7) Torberg to Max Tau, letter of 8 July, 1945, quoted in Corbin, “Friedrich Torberg: Exil und Rückkehr,” 363.

(8) Friedrich Torberg, ‘An Stelle eines Leitartikels …’ Forum, 1, 1 (January 1954), 2.

(9) Letter of Josselson to Torberg, 3 April 1958, CCF/IACF Archive, University of Chicago, Series II, Box 110.

(10) See Kurt Palm, Vom Boykott zur Anerkennung: Brecht und Österreich (Vienna: Löcker, 1983).

(11) Torberg to Lawrence Dalcher (Information Officer, U.S. Embassy), 5 December 1953, Friedrich Torberg Papers, Wiener Stadt- und Landesbibliothek, Box 18, Folder 6.

(12) Torberg to Daniel Madden (Information Officer, U.S. Embassy), 4 November 1953, Friedrich Torberg Papers, Wiener Stadt- und Landesbibliothek, Box 18, Folder 6.

(13) See Ian Wellens, Music on the Frontline: Nicolas Nabakov’s Struggle against Communism and Middlebrow Culture (Burlington: Ashgate, 2002).

(14) Robert Menasse, Überbau und Untergrund: die sozialpartnerschaftliche Ästhetik (Vienna: Sonderzahl 1990)

(15) Letter from Bondy to Fredie Warburg, 22 October 1972, Michael Josselson Papers, University of Texas, Box 20, Folder 1.

(16) Letter from Torberg to Bondy, 9 January 1955, Torberg Papers, Wiener Stadt- und Landesbibliothek, Box 17, Folder 12, and, in a similar tone to Michael Josselson three years later, ‘Forum is much more Austrian than Preuves is French or Der Monat is German. It is not, and cannot be, an international magazine, it’s an Austrian magazine and as such being held in high international esteem’. Torberg to Josselson, 12 April 1958, CCF/IACF Papers, University of Chicago, Series II, Box 110.

(17)Friedrich Torberg, “Arthur Miller: Hexenjagd.” Forum I,5 (May 1954): 27: “Gemeint ist, dass die Verdienste dieses Problemdramas weniger im Dramatischen liegen als im Problem, oder, noch simpler gesagt, dass Hexenjagd kein sehr gutes Theaterstück ist, aber ein sehr wichtiges. Auch dass es im Burgtheater aufgeführt wurde ist wichtig, und mit besonderer Genugtuung darf festgestellt werden, dass es seine sehr gute Aufführung war. … dass in den Ländern der kommunistischen Ideologie die Hexenjagd auch heute noch zu todesurteilen führt, in Amerika jedoch schlimmstenfalls—und er selbst hat diesen schlimmsten Fall am eigenen Leib erfahren—zu zeitwieliger Verweigerung eines Reisepasses. Unterlässt er diese Ergänzung, dann stellt er sich zumindest in intellektueller Hinsicht das gleiche Armutszeugnis aus wie die kommunistische Presse, die vor lauter Begeisterung über dieses ‘mutige’ Stück, das dem ‘faschistischen Amerika’ einen ‘erbarmungslosen Spiegel vorhält, gar nicht bemerkt hat dass das faschistische Amerika mutig genug ist, sich diesen Spiegel vorhalten zu lassen.”

(18) See, for instance, Daniel Boorstin ‘Amerika oder Das Unbehagen in der Demokratie’ Forum I,9 (September 1954): 6-9, a nuanced look at the different political attitudes that animate American democracy; Hannah Arendt, ‘Über den Autoritätsbegriff: Ein Versuch zur Unterscheidung von “Autoritär,” “Tyrranisch” und “Totalitär”; Forum II, 23 (November 1955): 385-89, or Wolf von Eckardt, ‘Alles hat Konjunktur, nur die Kanonen nicht (Ein Brief aus Washington)’ Forum II, 23 (November 1955): 391-92.

(19) Clement Greenberg ‘Abstraktes Amerika’ Forum II, 22 (October 1955): 374-76: “Zwei Feststellungen sollen diese Untersuchung einleiten und den Standpunkt ihres Verfassers präzisieren: 1. die Abstraktion hat sich zum dominierenden und geradezu endgültigen Stil der modernen Kunst entwickelt; und 2. das Zenturm der Abstraktion hat sich von Europa in die Vereinigten Staaten verlagert.” [374]…”Die allgemeine Überzeugung meint noch immer, aus Amerika könne große Kunst ebensowenig kommen wie ein großer Wein. Und ich wage die Behauptung, dass eine Gruppe von so talentierten und egenwilligen Malern, wie sie der amerikanische abstrakte Expressionismus zusammengeführt hat, seit den Tagen des Kubismus nicht mehr da war.” [376]

(20)Ernst Lothar, “’Buchstabieren Sie Ihren Namen!’” Forum VII, 82 (October 1960): 82. Heinrich Schnitzler, ‘Dramatische Werkstätten in Amerika I:’ Forum IV, 46 (October 1957): 359-61, “Es ist ein Theaterbetrieb, der auf rein geschäftlicher Grundlage aufgebaut ist. Man spricht deshalb auch von ‘show-business,’ dem Theatergeschäft, oder—ein umfassenderer Begriff, der auch Rundfunk, Film und Fernsehen mithineinbezieht—von der ‘entertainment industry,’ der Unterhaltungsindustrie. Der Begriff des Kulturtheaters, dessen volkserzieherische Funktion etwa der einer Bibliothek, eines Museums, einer Schule gleichkäme und aus öffentlichen Mitteln zu unterstützen wäre, existiert nicht.” (359) Also Forum IV, 47 (November 1957): 402-05, Heinrich Schnitzler, ‘Dramatische Werkstätten in Amerika II’: “Die Arbeit der Dramatischen Werkstätten in Amerika ist nicht durchaus der Ausbildung von Berufsdramatikern gewidmet. Was ihre Methoden und Ziele vor allem bestimmt, ist vielmehr der Glaube an die schöpferischen Kräfte in jedem Menschen und ein Gefühl der Verpflichtung, diese Kräfte aufzuspüren und zur freien Entfaltung anzuregen. Die Arbeit der Dramatischen Werkstätten ist also zunächst nicht Ausdruck eines Kunstwollens, sondern eines Erziehungsideals, das der Entwicklung der Gesamtpersönlichkeit in einer freien Gesellschaft dienen will.” (405)

(21)Ernst Krenek, “Amerikanischer Musiksommer” Forum VI, 70 (October 1959): 377-78.

1.11. American and Austrian Literature and Film: Influences, Interactions and Intersections

“Our Man in Vienna”:

Friedrich Torberg’s Journal Forum and the Popularization
of American Letters in Austria

“Our Man in Vienna”:

Friedrich Torberg’s Journal Forum and the Popularization of American Letters in Austria

Friedrich Torberg’s Journal Forum and the Popularization
of American Letters in Austria