Talk:Kurt Waldheim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
WikiProject United Nations This article is part of WikiProject United Nations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about the United Nations, its various comittees and the resolutions it passes.
If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] Facts in entry correct?

Your facts are not all correct on this entry. If you read the commisions actual report they did not clear him.

Very interesting, what was he accused off? I have posted comments on other places on wikipedia but no answers or comments. Am i the first to respond to you?

[edit] Allegations or Revelations?

Unsuccessfully Waldheim had sought to be elected President of Austria in 1971, but a second attempt in 1986 proved successful despite revelations that he had served as an officer in a German army unit that had committed war atrocities in Yugoslavia, during World War II. An investigation cleared him from the allegations, but his term as president was tainted and he would not seek re-election in 1992.

Okay, which is it?? Allegations or revelations? This paragraph is clearly contradictory. Daniel Quinlan 01:13, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)
The allegations were of course that he was involved in war atrocities. The Austrian government commissioned an investigation by a board of historians (I am not sure if there was an Austrian on this board, but there was at least one member from the US, one from Switzerland, one from Israel). The investigation cleared him from allegations of being himself involved in war crimes, but (as I remember) pointed out that there were gaps and inaccuracies (mildly speaking; others would call it "lies") in Waldheim's own account of his wartime service. He was a communications officer, I think, in charge of sending reports, so he must have known more about whatever happened than he admitted.
Therefore, last words on the article's bottom are "but many Austrians still assert Waldheim's innocence." are biased and misleading. I have removed them.
Waldheim was put on the US "Watchlist" (of suspected war criminals and Nazis), and was in general shunned by other world leaders. Austrians felt that this was (a) unfair but (b) bad for Austria. Waldheim himself ignored these problems and saw himself as being rather popular, and did want to seek reelection; however, the party that had supported his first bid (Austrian People's party, conservatives) withdrew support. Aleph4 10:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I hope that, at least for the time being, what I just added ("allegations of having been a war criminal") will help make this passage less ambiguous.
The Waldheim affair is a very complex matter and should probably have its own article. Whatever Waldheim did during World War II (and it seems he didn't do anything apart from shutting up and trying to get ahead), what people didn't like at all was that he wouldn't remember. Time had Waldheim's image and "The Art of Forgetting" on its cover. By the way, already in his memoirs, In the Eye of the Storm, Waldheim had failed to mention his role during WWII.
The U.S. "Watchlist" (of suspected war criminals and Nazis) mentioned by Aleph4 is also rather interesting. It has been mentioned again and again in Austrian papers, which focused on the fact that a former U.N. Secretary General was now denied access to the U.S. Personally, I wonder if that is still the case. Does anyone know? --KF 14:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


[edit] Did he break the Geneva Convention?

I would like to hear more about the 15 British POWs. Where is this documented? It was my impression that he was in no position to issue "executive orders", but I may be wrong.

Also, I think that "Nazi past" is inaccurate. There are differences between

  • serving in the Wehrmacht (Hitler's army), which committed war crimes
  • committing war crimes
  • being a Nazi

It is true that there are many Nazis who committed war crimes, but not every war criminal is/was a Nazi, and not every Nazi is/was a war criminal.


Aleph4 14:24, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


If there is a proof that he breached the Geneva Conventions, than that is a war crime. But the next sentence states that he was cleared from being a war criminal. Sounds contradictory. 143.50.212.215 17:31, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


I removed the sentence He also served in Greece, whence he signed an executive order that broke the Geneva Conventions by putting 15 captured British pilots to death. for the moment. This is really a serious allegation, and I think it should not be in wikipedia without being backed up by some sources, at least of the kind "A New York Times article in month/year reports that..." or "In his book xxx, journalist/historian /..." yyy accuses Waldheim..."
I also modified "Nazi past", see my remarks above.
Aleph4 10:03, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Member of the SS?

As far as I know, he was not a member of the SS, but of the Wehrmacht 143.50.212.215 17:35, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Membership in the SA is too highly questinable. When Hitler occopied Austria his centralised Diktatorship overtook all organisations simelar like the communists, witch is called in German "Gleichschaltung". So a lot of Organisation where either closed dawn ore became part of NS Organisations mainly with the SA in witch you could find everything from a car drivers association to sportclubs. Surly it is not overseeable if or how long by his own will he was part of this organisation, because he was belonging before to one of the transfered Austrian sports organisations.

[edit] Did he break the Geneva Convention? (again)

I removed the following section: He also served in Greece, whence he signed an executive order that broke the Geneva Conventions by putting 15 captured British pilots to death. Reasons: I have never heard that he signed an executive order putting 15 pow's to death. Where is it documented? Gugganij 15:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet blackmail

Since I have never heard the following information before, I would like to know where it is documented:

Media reports in 1983 revealed that the Soviet Union implicated him through captured German archives at the beginning of his first term. They used this information to blackmail him. His second term as Secretary General was heavily anti-American as per the Soviet Union's prodding.

Additionally, what is exactly meant by heavily anti-American? What is the author of those lines refering to? Gugganij 23:50, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I removed the section quoted above from the article. Gugganij 13:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

I have no idea, why the content of the talk page was archived (Talk:Kurt Waldheim/archive). Its length couldn't have been a proper reason. I reinserted the whole content. Gugganij 20:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roosevelt etc.

The following users have several time tried to introduce a long and rather confused text:

It seems to me that this is always the same user. I have just reverted this text (again).

The text starts with

Eleanore Roosevelt et al.,
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights", ... 10.th Dec. 1948 ...
........................"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."
In others words. To prevent a manmade desaster, human sacrifice, wrong choice and wrong investment, f.i. in mediocracy like the competing Hitler, is possible, but not by neglecting, rather accepting, just under the "Rule of Law" (Beck). Not possible by mobbing this universal law. As a whole.

What exactly does this mean, in plain English? Are you talking about Waldheim at all?

As far as it is known, the (international) allied let (unfortunately most of) the 10.2 Million caught nazi-(aggression/crime)- followers free, but after Auschwitz and Omaha Beach, cruelties and sins in general as "not-amnestied" and into a curfew, till the cases, like in the Nuremberg Nazi-Trials decided, are brought to justice in each single case of committed damage. And thge legal obligations to the targets, communities, "rule of law" (Beck) thereby.

Again I canot parse the convoluted syntax of this sentence. And where does the number "10.2 million" come from? Prisoners of war on the Axis side? Members of the NSDAP? What is the connection between Omaha Beach and Waldheim??

If you want to constructively contribute to the article, please do so. But please write only things that are relevant to the article. If you continue to insert your text without discussing it, this might be considered vandalism.

--Aleph4 17:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Miscellaneous

The article contains a highly unbelievable remark concerning the Voyager Golden Records: The spacecraft carrying the records are now in deep space, and will probably endure long after the Sun and Earth are gone. Our sun will exist for another 4-5 billion years. I'm not sure the Earth will be with the sun that long but I'm quite certain, man-made records don't have a life-span like that.

Unless someone can find a reasonable explanation for this absurd claim, we should rephrase it.--Istabraq 01:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Not an absurd claim. It isn't made of vinyl. As far as we know, the record isn't being repeatedly played on a $10 portable record player by a butter-fingered six-year-old. Lacking any evidence that it won't endure long after the demise of the Solar System, it think the statement should stay. --QuicksilverT @ 08:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a lump of gold moving through a vacuum. There is no reason to suspect it won't endure for an extremely long time. Rhomboid Man 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of former Nazis influential after 1945

Shouldn't he be included in it? Tazmaniacs 14:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, since he was no Nazi. Unfortunately, and that is the crux with the list/category is much too vague a term - does it mean party member, adherent of its ideology, member of an affiliated organisation, member of some state institution? In Waldheim's case numbers 1 and 2 do not apply, number 4 does and number 3 is ambiguous as he indeed was a member of the SA but only AFAIK because he belonged to some group that was incorporated during the Anschluß. Still, he is categorized as a SA member - the result of a recent discussion with fellow User:Mingus ah um. Str1977 (smile back) 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

And for the same reasons he shouldn't be included in a category of "Austrian Nazis". Furthermore, in Waldheim's age group, this category best focuses on those that were NS members before 1938. Str1977 (smile back) 11:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Mingus Str1977, he was so a Nazi: he was a member of the NSDStB, the student wing of the NSDAP– check out their uniforms and insignia cometime. This was all confirmed by a historical commission in 1988. (see notes in article). Whiskey Pete 20:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Mingus is not here, so I guess you want to address me.
No, Waldheim was not a Nazi, which is a blurry term, but we best stick with party membership. This was discussed with Mingus before. Including him among "Austrian Nazis" implies that he belonged in that political camp of Austrian politics prior to 1938. After 1938, there were no new "Austrian Nazis" as this all was part of Germany. Waldheim seem to have been an opportunist. We cover his SA membership in a category and if we had a NS-students category that would be fitting too. Str1977 (smile back) 20:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You can attach whatever significance you want to the date of his joining; and perhaps the category "Austrian Nazis" is not encyclopedic, and should be replaced with something designating verifiable NSDAP (or SA, SS, etc) membership. To wit: it's established that Waldheim was a member of the NS-Studentenbund, and 'bund was very cleary an NS organization; in addition to everything you'll read about its formings and its charter, it was explicitly banned as "an NS organization" after the war. His motives (to the extent these can be known), while of interest, do not override the matter of his NSDAP affiliation, which at least one recognized historiographical commission has established beyond contention. To say "Waldheim was not a Nazi", then, is to play semantic games. Whiskey Pete 21:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
No one disputes the character of the the Studentenbund. Of course it was an NS-organisation, but hitherto the best solution has been to focus the term "Nazi" (as I said no unambiguous term) to party members.
"Austrian Nazis" is an encyclopedic term, but the problem is that there are various groupings in Austrian politics, as clearly visible in List_of_fascists#Austrian_Nazis.
If you want to create a category "members of the NS-Studentenbund", go ahead. Str1977 (smile back) 21:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no interest in the WP Category for "Austrian Nazis", and you'll notice I don't use that phrase in the section. I simply noticed that you specifically erased ("de-emphasized", as you say) the NSDAP affiliation from that section; being that you fully understand that the Studentenbund is universally recognized as an extension of the NSDAP, it's very difficult to interpret this specific erasure as other than an attempt at Verharmlosung. Whiskey Pete 22:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I could live with calling the NSStB an organisation affiliated with the NSDAP, but not an organ of the NSDAP or an extension. It is not about downplaying but about accuracy. An organ of the NSDAP would be e.g. the Parteikanzlei. Str1977 (smile back) 22:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't matter if you can live with it or not

NSDAP Organizational Chart published in 1934
NSDAP Organizational Chart published in 1934

I just wish, Str1977, that you'd tell us which part of "Gliederungen der Partei" from this 1934 Orga-chart you have an issue with, or stop vandalizing the article, please. Whiskey Pete 22:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Pete, stop being uncivil. I am not to blame if you use the wrong word. The NSStB was an affiliated organisation not an organ of the party. Also, wrong accusations are incivil too. 1. I did not vandalize, 2. I did do nothing at all when you made your last posting. Str1977 (smile back) 22:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm always civil. And to leave things on a most civil note for this evening, sir, I'd like to ask you to explain for us what you mean by "an affiliated organization, not an organ of the party" when the helpful chart to the right, published by the very party in question, indicates the exact opposite of this. Whiskey Pete 23:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Not always, as evidenced above. Anyway, you needn't lecture me about the chart as I know it well. And it doesn't confirm what you are trying to make of it. Organs of the party are offices or bodies within the party, e.g. Parteikanzlei, Gauleiter etc. Affiliated organisations are those not actually part of the party but subordinate to it. A member of those organisations is not automatically member of the party. I wonder why that is so hard for you to understand. I assume good faith and will not speculate about ulterior motives. Str1977 (smile back) 23:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I shan't speculate as to why you said the NSDStB was an affiliated organisation not an organ of the party, above, or as to why you deleted the words "... an organ of the NSDAP" from the article. I'll leave that to curious onlookers who might care to click on the chart to the right, and have access to a dictionary. Whiskey Pete 23:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the NsDStB was a "Parteigliederung" and not a "Angeschlossener Verband". Both are organisations affiliated to the party, though the affiliation of the former is closer. The category of "Parteigliederung" [1] also includes organisations like the SA, SS or HJ. In no way can either be described as an "organ" of the party. In any case, it is completely normal to simply state where he was a memner with leaving details to the linked articles. Why you keep on about this at all is beyond me. Str1977 (smile back)
I propose using the term "division" for Parteigliederung.
I still oppose the inclusion of so many information better suited for the linked article. Let me add that it is selective inclusion, as the article doesn't talk about the NSDStB' monopoly on students' organisation. That is not to take anything away from Mr Waldheim's decision but to provide incomplete information is giving a wrong picture. The insinuation is that he was a criminal after all, even though he did not commit a crime.
What insinuation? That was what the designation "criminal organization" meant: membership in the major NS divisions was (at least officially) considered a criminal offense, prima facie, by the German and Austrian justice systems after the war, and you had to have your record specifically cleared (or have your file "lost") in order to obtain any kind of position as a civil servant. And all this notwithstanding, Waldheim most certainly did commit some rather heinous crimes later on, you know, so I don't know why you'd quibble about asserting that his NSDAP affiliations were also criminal. Whiskey Pete 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I also propose including all his affiliations (or lack thereof) in one section. Str1977 (smile back) 17:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] characterizations of the ÖCV

Str77, I don't particularly mean to override every you make. But it is no way misleading to describe the "early beginnings of the ÖCV [as being] deeply intertwined with the emergence of Austrian Fascism" as in the deleted text. Any reading of the history of the Cartellverband reveals this as a rather modest assessment; if anything it would be misleading to specifically omit references to the ÖCV's connections to Austrian fascism.

While no doubt you are intimately familiar with the historical outlines, for the sake of context I cite for example this most helpful section from the German-language page on Austrofaschismus:

Der Österreichische Cartellverband (ÖCV) nahm während der Zeit des Austrofaschismus eine intellektuelle Trägerfunktion des Regimes wahr. Nicht zuletzt aus diesem Grund fiel der gesellschaftliche Aufstieg des Verbands zeitlich mit der Ausschaltung der parlamentarischen Demokratie und der Etablierung des austrofaschistischen Systems zusammen.

Zwischen 1933 und 1938 waren fast alle öffentlichen Ämter von größerer Bedeutung mit ÖCV-Mitgliedern besetzt. Engelbert Dollfuß wurde Zeit seines Lebens in der offiziellen Sprachregelung des ÖCV als „Führer“ gesehen und auch so bezeichnet. Im Gegenzug sorgte Dollfuß dafür, dass junge Akademiker, die dem ÖCV angehörten, schnell zu Spitzenpositionen in Politik und Verwaltung vordringen konnten. Des Weiteren wurde dem Regierungschef ein Mitspracherecht bei der Besetzung von Ämtern innerhalb des ÖCV eingeräumt.

Dem Historiker Stephan Neuhäuser zu Folge „unterstützten mindestens 37 % aller studierenden Mitglieder des ÖCV in verschiedenen Wehrformationen Bundesheer und Heimwehr während der Februarereignisse 1934 (…) In Graz beteiligten sich 70 % der aktiven ÖCVer auf Seiten der Regierungstruppen und Heimwehren, in Leoben 45 %, in Wien 33 % und in Innsbruck 29 %. Die größten Kontingente stellten Babenberg Graz (40), Carolina Graz (40), Austria Wien (53), Austria Innsbruck (49), Norica Wien (64) und Rudolfina Wien (54)“[1]. Nach dem Februar übernahm die dem ÖCV nahe stehende Akademikerhilfe die zuvor sozialistischen Akademikerheime in der Säulengasse 18 sowie der Billrothstraße 9 in Wien.

Der Anteil von ÖCVern in verschiedenen Gremien des austrofaschistischen Staates war enorm hoch. Im Bundesrat lag er bei 90 Prozent. Mit Otto Kemptner wurde ein Bundesbruder von Engelbert Dollfuß mit dem Aufbau der Vaterländischen Front beauftragt. Für Mitglieder des ÖCV bestand ab 1933 Beitrittspflicht.

Der Einfluss des ÖCV auf die österreichische Regierungspolitik war offensichtlich. In der Regierung Dollfuß I gehörten sechs von zehn Ministern dem Verband an, nach drei Regierungsumbildungen waren es schließlich acht von zehn. Die Regierung Dollfuß II bestand ausschließlich aus Mitgliedern des ÖCV, in der Regierung Dollfuß III waren immerhin noch sechs von 13 Ministern Korporierte. Ähnlich verhielt es sich in den Regierungen Schuschnigg, in denen der ÖCV jeweils etwa die Hälfte der Ministerposten besetzen konnte. Auch als 1936 Nationalsozialisten in die Regierung aufgenommen wurden, waren immer noch vier Minister aus dem ÖCV Teil des Kabinetts und sogar noch in der nationalsozialistischen Marionettenregierung unter Arthur Seyß-Inquart fanden sich mit Wilhelm Wolf und Oswald Menghin zwei ÖCVer.

and therewith rest my case. Whiskey Pete 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your post. However what you wrote doesn't touch my concerns. The passage is problematic and misleading as

  • It places under current affiliations a characterisation of the ÖCV, leaving the impression that Waldheim at present is part of some fascist group.
  • I wonder what the passage tries to achieve anyway.
  • Most importantly: it is not only actually wrong but doesn't help to increase the reader's understanding but plays on the probable lack of knowledge. Let me elaborate. The passage says "Though the Cartellverband would later come into open conflict with (and some of its members subject to persecution from) the NSDAP, the early beginnings of the ÖCV were deeply intertwined with the emergence of Austrian Fascism." The passage constructs a dichotomy that doesn't exist: Austrofascism (which would be a better term) ever was in conflict with Nazism and therefore there is no "though", "later", "beginnings". The passage implies that the two movements are somehow related, playing on the inaccurate identification of Nazism and Fascism. Anyone who knows the facts will shake their heads on reading this passage, anyone who doesn't will be misinformed.

So, I cannot accept this addition. However, I would have no objection to including a passage about Waldheim's membership and the link to Austrofascism in the early life - political affiliations section, if Waldheim (as I presume) was a regular member at that time as well. Str1977 (smile back) 08:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/u/r/Talk%7EKurt_Waldheim_40c6.html"