Traditions of the rule of law, traditions of anti-Fascist and anti-Nazi resistance but also, at the same time, the continuing survival of anti-Semitism and of other social, political and racist prejudices against the victims of the Nazi regime are factors which must be perceived, assigning them their correct relative weight and noting their ambivalence and their mutual tensions.

The adoption of the specific legislative foundations to permit restitution and compensation was only accomplished after some delays. Especially the Third Restitution Act passed in February 1947 led to political debates well into the fifties, and several attempts to amend it at the expense of claimants failed not least because they were resisted by the Allied Powers, while some of them were abandoned on diplomatic considerations. Other problems, such as the restitution of rented apartments and shops, had reached the stage of a government bill but did not in the end make it to the statute books. More steps to indemnify former owners did not follow until the fifties and early sixties. Research projects will have to lead to a detailed analysis of the political influences and decisionmaking processes - including an analysis of the positions of the country's political parties - which influenced, accompanied, obstructed or frustrated the legislation relevant to restitution and compensation.

As the domestic political level, electioneering played an important role (former Nazis were regaining their civic rights and were becoming a pool of votes), as did the unwillingness of the beneficiaries of expropriations to give up their gains, lobbying within the political parties (by industry, the farming community etc.) and the clout of the press, the Chambers (i.e. the official business and professional organisations), the banking and insurance industries and others.

Other relevant factors are likely to have been the social and political acceptance enjoyed by the dispossessed groups and their possibilities to exert political pressure. An analysis and weighting will have to be made - including an account of the stands taken by the Allied Powers - in order to come to a correct evaluation of the internal processes in Austria. A comprehensive survey will have to include the Nazi victims living in Austria, their organisations, their political clout and, closely associated therewith, their social position, the acceptance they enjoyed and their social situation. It was in particular the leadership of the "Israelitische Kultusgemeinde", the official religious Jewish Community reduced to a few thousand members, whose relationship to the country's political forces was beset by tensions and who found it difficult also to defend the interests of those Austrian Jews who had been forced out of Austria by the Nazis and most of whom had not returned. Other groups of victims, such as the Roma and Sinti, had no effective avenues at all to protect their interests, whereas the people who had suffered persecution because of their political views bore post-war party-political labels and thus had hardly any possibility to voice their concerns against the wishes of the leadership of their parties.

On the opposite side, certain forces lined up to oppose compensation, such as the "Verband der Rückstellungsbetroffenenen", an organisation of people who would have to give up property under the restitution legislation. These groups found allies and support at the political level.

The constraints under which the reborn Republic of Austria was labouring, since its sovereignty was limited until 1955, constituted another important factor for the whole problem of indemnification. For instance, Soviet claims to "German property" were often used as an argument to reject Jewish claims. The repeated failure of diplomatic negotiations to produce a peace treaty (or "State Treaty") with Austria was also argued as a reason for the standstill of negotiations on property issues (e.g. intestate assets).