Support NeoGAF

[capslock]

.

Schwarzenegger criticized for Austrian history gaffes

Friday, September 3, 2004 Posted: 10:58 AM EDT (1458 GMT)



VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Austrian historians are ridiculing California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for telling the Republican National Convention that he saw Soviet tanks in his homeland as a child and left a "Socialist" country when he moved away in 1968.

Recalling that the Soviets once occupied part of Austria in the aftermath of World War II, Schwarzenegger told the convention on Tuesday: "I saw tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes."

No way, historians say, challenging Schwarzenegger's knowledge of postwar history -- if not his enduring popularity among Austrians who admire him for rising from a penniless immigrant to the highest official in America's most populous state.

"It's a fact -- as a child he could not have seen a Soviet tank in Styria," the southeastern province where Schwarzenegger was born and raised, historian Stefan Karner told the Vienna newspaper Kurier.

Schwarzenegger, now a naturalized U.S. citizen, was born on July 30, 1947, when Styria and the neighboring province of Carinthia belonged to the British zone. At the time, postwar Austria was occupied by the four wartime allies, which also included the United States, the Soviet Union and France.

The Soviets already had left Styria in July 1945, less than three months after the end of the war, Karner noted.

"Let me tell you this: As a boy, I lived for many years across the street from where the Russians were based in Vienna -- and honestly, I never saw a Russian tank there," retiree Franz Nitsch said Friday. "He said it all on purpose -- and that's bad."

In his convention address, Schwarzenegger also said: "As a kid, I saw the Socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left" in 1955 and Austria regained its independence.

But Martin Polaschek, a law history scholar and vice rector of Graz University, told Kurier that Austria was governed by coalition governments, including the conservative People's Party and the Social Democratic Party. Between 1945 and 1970, all the nation's chancellors were conservatives -- not Socialists.

What's more, when Schwarzenegger left in 1968, Austria was run by a conservative government headed by People's Party Chancellor Josef Klaus, a staunch Roman Catholic and a sharp critic of both the Socialists as well as the Communists ruling in countries across the Iron Curtain.

Schwarzenegger "confuses a free country with a Socialist one," said Polaschek, referring to East European Communist officials' routine descriptions of their countries as Socialist.

Polaschek saw the moderate Republican governor's recollections at the convention as a tactical move. Schwarzenegger, he said, was "using the old Communist enemy image for Bush's election campaign."

"He did not speak as a historian, after all, but as a politician," Polaschek said.

Norbert Darabos, a ranking official of Austria's opposition Social Democratic Party, sharply criticized Schwarzenegger's "disdain for his former homeland."

"The Terminator is constructing a rather bizarre Austria image," he said.

But many ordinary Austrians seemed to be in a forgiving mood Friday over the gaffes.

"Maybe he has a wrong recollection -- it's so many years since he left," said Wilma Fadrany, 32, a Vienna waitress.

"There must be political reasons for such comments," she said. "You've got to tell the (convention delegates) what they want to hear in order to win them over. Politicians always talk the way it fits into their agenda."

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

Do you think the people that listen to him are concerned about facts.

 

[capslock]

Do you think the people that listen to him are concerned about facts.

No sir!!!!

 

[videogamer]

Do you think the people that listen to him are concerned about facts.

It is a pretty big discrepancy though. Maybe he should have gotten some historians to look over his speech first.

 

[Baron Aloha]

Whats funny is that the average American will just eat it right up.

 

[Lathentar]

He was a kid, maybe he remembered wrong.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

He was a kid, maybe he remembered wrong.

Yes, a 21 year old kid. The Soviets had left Austria before he was born.

 

[videogamer]

He was a kid, maybe he remembered wrong.

He left the country when he was 21. It doesn't take much to remember or look back in history books about what happened. This information isn't exactly hidden in some Soviet archive.

Edit: bah beaten by slick

 

[commish]

Maybe he was playing Steel Battalion and got confused.

 

[SKluck]

This doesn't change anything. He has a fuzzy memory or he embelished for effect, either way his speech remains the same in terms of 99% of its message.

 

[capslock]

This doesn't change anything. He has a fuzzy memory or he embelished for effect, either way his speech remains the same in terms of 99% of its message.

Ja.

 

[videogamer]

This doesn't change anything. He has a fuzzy memory or he embelished for effect, either way his speech remains the same in terms of 99% of its message.

He's been repeating this for quite a while actually. You know how it goes... repeat the lie enough times.....

I'm quite suprised not more people are on this... I remember him using this when he ran for governor.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

This doesn't change anything. He has a fuzzy memory or he embelished for effect, either way his speech remains the same in terms of 99% of its message.

Which is what? Conservitaves ruined the country that he was in and the only way for him to find success was to move to a more liberal country.

 

[DarienA]

This doesn't change anything. He has a fuzzy memory or he embelished for effect, either way his speech remains the same in terms of 99% of its message.

Applause for this awesome display of damage control.

 

[bishoptl]

:lol

 

[Cooter]

Which is what? Conservitaves ruined the country that he was in and the only way for him to find success was to move to a more liberal country.

You can't be serious with this statement. Now Communism is considered conservative?

This forum never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Celicar]

So what?

Who cares?

etc

 

[videogamer]

So what?

Who cares?

etc

Uh. Did you read the article?

 

[videogamer]

You can't be serious with this statement. Now Communism is considered conservative?

This forum never ceases to amaze me.

Uh... since when was Austria ever considered a Communist country? Did you read the article?

 

[Drinky Crow]

You can't be serious with this statement. Now Communism is considered conservative?

It's no more disingenuous than equating a liberal stance with communism.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

You can't be serious with this statement. Now Communism is considered conservative?

This forum never ceases to amaze me.

No one confused that except Schwarzenegger.

I saw tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes.

"It's a fact -- as a child he could not have seen a Soviet tank in Styria," the southeastern province where Schwarzenegger was born and raised, historian Stefan Karner told the Vienna newspaper Kurier.

I know you US conservatives don't put a lot of stock in "facts" and "reality" but a little investment in the concept of RIF would do some justice here.

Austria was governed by coalition governments, including the conservative People's Party and the Social Democratic Party. Between 1945 and 1970, all the nation's chancellors were conservatives -- not Socialists.

I was just making a play on his loose interpertation of the facts he didn't see communisim with his own eyes he saw conseravtivism.

 

[Cooter]

Uh... since when was Austria ever considered a Communist country? Did you read the article?

It never was. I thought he was referring to Communism.

It's no more disingenuous than equating a liberal stance with communism.

Communism is much closer to Liberalism of today than that of Conservatives. Do you ever see Communist protesters at the Democratic Convention?

Liberalism, socialism and communism are from the same family.

 

[Che]

C'mon guys stop attacking Schwarzenegger. He's an idiot, what did you expect?

 

[videogamer]

It never was. I thought he was referring to Communism.



Communism is much closer to Liberalism of today than that of Conservatives. Do you ever see Communist protesters at the Democratic Convention?

Liberalism, socialism and communism are from the same family.

I don't follow. How is he referring to Communism?

Also, the presence of Communist protesters anywhere doesn't prove the connection between two ideologies. Just because two movements promote change doesn't mean that they are the same thing.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Cooter, you're an uneducated idiot.

Show me exactly WHERE in the "liberal" philosophy that calls for the state and communal ownership of property. Can you even accurately circumscribe the "liberal" philosophy without relying on strawmen?

 

[Cooter]

I don't follow. How is he referring to Communism?

He's not, I was wrong.


Regarding communism and liberalism, I never said they were the same thing only that they share many of the same ideas.

Liberals want the government to take a large role in one's life just like communism.

Liberals feel religion is a negative to a country.

Liberals believe in wealth redistribution.

Those are the main similarities that I see.

 

[capslock]

I never said they were the same thing only that they share many of the same ideas.

Liberals want the government to take a large role in one's life just like communism.

Liberals feel religion is a negative to a country.

Liberals believe in wealth distribution.

Those are the main similarities that I see.

Republicans like to wear clothes when outside just like the Nazis.


Republicans usually eat three meals a day similarly to Nazis.


Republicans are usually white, just like Nazis.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

I would think most liberals would wish for individuals to worship as they choose and not have the govenment in cahoots with one state endorced religion. That means that those that choose a religious path as their compass then so be it. If not then so be it as well.

That seems to run counter to the social contract of social conseratives.

 

[Cooter]

I agree Slick but you and I know that most hardcore liberals dispise religion and feel it should be done away with. I'm not talking about the democratic party mind you, just the self proclaimed extremist liberals.

EDIT:

Going to lunch. Have a good weekend everyone.

 

[yoshifumi]

Republicans like to wear clothes when outside just like the Nazis.


Republicans usually eat three meals a day similarly to Nazis.


Republicans are usually white, just like Nazis.

:lol

 

[capslock]

I agree Slick but you and I know that most hardcore liberals dispise religion and feel it should be done away with. I'm not talking about the democratic party mind you, just the self proclaimed extremist liberals.

Yes, and most hardcore conservatives want to kill all minorities, you and I both know that.

:rolleyes

 

[Saturnman]

This doesn't change anything. He has a fuzzy memory or he embelished for effect, either way his speech remains the same in terms of 99% of its message.

Lying gets you what you want? Is that it?

 

[MrAngryFace]

Arnold gets to be where he is cause who he replaced was really THAT bad.

Sides, its sorta funny.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

I agree Slick but you and I know that most hardcore liberals dispise religion and feel it should be done away with. I'm not talking about the democratic party mind you, just the self proclaimed extremist liberals.

EDIT:

Going to lunch. Have a good weekend everyone.

That would be a gross generalzation akin to all blacks steal or all asians can't drive. There are a subset of every group that are going to be extreme in one way or another but, that is not the voice of that entire group.

You can walk down any major downtown city and see a homeless man standing in his own piss with a sign "Will work for food". Holding a bible yelling at passers-by the end is coming repent. He is not representative of every person in that city but, your arguement says becasue this one person in the city is like that the everyone else in the city is like that.

My view is slanted to the liberal and I feel religion is important to all people regardless of their personal views. To me your blanket statement reveals a gross misunderstanding of people and shows that you subscribe to the group think of simpeltons. I would suggest that you spend more time viewing people as individuals rather than some easy to dismiss group.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Liberals want the government to take a large role in one's life just like communism.

Liberals feel religion is a negative to a country.

Liberals believe in wealth redistribution.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. That's three strawmen; zero facts.

Here's the dictionary.com definition, for reference:

The state or quality of being liberal.

A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

Liberalism is the philosophy of rapid change and progress in favor of civil liberty; that's all. It's the nebulous ideological opposite of conservatism, which values only slow and measured progress, and the preservation of tradition over civil liberty.

Liberals don't want NECESSARILY want government to take a larger role; much like their conservative brtheren, they DO want the government to enforce those changes in society they deem worthwhile. Much as many self-titled conservatives would like our laws to reflect the Ten Commandments and endorse a Biblical perspective, so would some like to see protection for the poor and disenfranchised. Liberal organizations like the ACLU exist to specifically PREVENT the egress of government into your private and personal life. And what could be more indicative of the intrusion of federal government than the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, increased military/defense spending, or the Patriot Acts I and II? By your definition, the conservatives are equally for big government, but the truth is, neither side specifically argues for "bigger government" -- just "their" style of government.

Most liberals are in fact religious; in fact, a large percentage of self-identified "liberal" Democratic voters are extremely religious. However, apparently unlike your bipolar definition of conservatism, they don't think that it should ever commingle with th government, and they don't believe that the Bible is findamental foundation for all law -- as the Founding Fathers intended. 85% of this country still identifies itself as "Christian", whereas at least 50% identify themselves as Democrats. On top of that, much of the libertarian base in the Republican party is atheistic -- JUST LIKE MARX!

Liberals don't believe in wealth redistribution, but they do believe in social progress toward a more egalitarian view of society unobstructed by aristocracies created in an unfair marketplace. Liberalism inherently despises dynasties and oligarchies. That means increasing wages for the poor- and middle-class and support for the "labor" class in general, but it doesn't suggest that the wealthy should be capped or likewise penalized.

Liberalism is as much an ideology friendly to Christianity and capitalism as conservatism, save that it's much less imperialistic about it.

You've somehow managed to equate "liberalism" with "against capitalism", which is a very stupid mistake. I suggest you read less emotionally-charged talking points spewed by armchair Free Republic economists and more REAL political philosophy.

 

[enjoy bell woods]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. That's three strawmen; zero facts.

Here's the dictionary.com definition, for reference:



Liberalism is the philosophy of rapid change and progress in favor of civil liberty; that's all. It's the nebulous ideological opposite of conservatism, which values only slow and measured progress, and the preservation of tradition over civil liberty.

Liberals don't want NECESSARILY want government to take a larger role; much like their conservative brtheren, they DO want the government to enforce those changes in society they deem worthwhile. Much as many self-titled conservatives would like our laws to reflect the Ten Commandments and endorse a Biblical perspective, so would some like to see protection for the poor and disenfranchised. Liberal organizations like the ACLU exist to specifically PREVENT the egress of government into your private and personal life. And what could be more indicative of the intrusion of federal government than the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, increased military/defense spending, or the Patriot Acts I and II? By your definition, the conservatives are equally for big government, but the truth is, neither side specifically argues for "bigger government" -- just "their" style of government.

Most liberals are in fact religious; in fact, a large percentage of self-identified "liberal" Democratic voters are extremely religious. However, apparently unlike your bipolar definition of conservatism, they don't think that it should ever commingle with th government, and they don't believe that the Bible is findamental foundation for all law -- as the Founding Fathers intended. 85% of this country still identifies itself as "Christian", whereas at least 50% identify themselves as Democrats. On top of that, much of the libertarian base in the Republican party is atheistic -- JUST LIKE MARX!

Liberals don't believe in wealth redistribution, but they do believe in social progress toward a more egalitarian view of society unobstructed by aristocracies created in an unfair marketplace. Liberalism inherently despises dynasties and oligarchies. That means increasing wages for the poor- and middle-class and support for the "labor" class in general, but it doesn't suggest that the wealthy should be capped or likewise penalized.

Liberalism is as much an ideology friendly to Christianity and capitalism as conservatism, save that it's much less imperialistic about it.

You've somehow managed to equate "liberalism" with "against capitalism", which is a very stupid mistake. I suggest you read less emotionally-charged talking points spewed by armchair Free Republic economists and more REAL political philosophy.

Great post, IMO

 

[Triumph]

Doug, sadly you are wasting your time and effort with this one. Very well written response.

The problem is, that it is easier for Cooter to equate everything to a black/white view of the world. There are no shades of gray. There are liberals, which are bad, and conservatives who are good. There is the Democratic Party, which is a god-hating, gay loving, gun taking away den of sin, and the courageous Republican Party, which will stand up for the decent, common man and his interests.

Am I right, Cooter? Is this the lens you view the world through? How unspeakably sad, for you and everyone who is doomed to shamble through life encumbered with such a skewed, horrible way of thinking and seeing things.

 

[Celicar]

Uh. Did you read the article?

yes.

now answer my question.

who cares?

 

[Triumph]

yes.

now answer my question.

who cares?

Die, Delta.

 

[Hitokage]

I agree Slick but you and I know that most hardcore liberals dispise religion and feel it should be done away with. I'm not talking about the democratic party mind you, just the self proclaimed extremist liberals.

EDIT:

Going to lunch. Have a good weekend everyone.

What is it with the religious right? Do they honestly believe that religion cannot survive without the expressed support of the government? Is Christianity so weak that if it's not in the lawbooks and enforced upon all it will crumble to pieces? Because that's what's being implied.

 

[DaveH]

yes.

now answer my question.

who cares?

Agreed. He saw tanks. He saw Soviets. He didn't say he saw Soviet tanks!

 

[Drinky Crow]

Hito:

Freakishly enough, it's that if all Americans aren't FORCED to abide by strict Christian morals, Jesus may not come back and/or he may nuke America for its collective sin by summoning the Biblical equivalent of Knights of the Round.

Seriously. Apparently Revelations was written in LISP.

 

[Guzim]

He's an idiot, what did you expect?

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Communism is much closer to Liberalism of today than that of Conservatives. Do you ever see Communist protesters at the Democratic Convention?

Are you kidding? Communists, Socialists, Greens, all groups that like to bug the Democratic Party for not being "left" enough.

 

[FortNinety]

yes.

now answer my question.

who cares?

I love the ultra pathetic attempts by Bush supporters around here to ignore or fight damaging facts.

 

[Tommie Hu$tle]

As is said before to our conserative friends facts are not necessary.

 

[sprsk]

Its okay to be ill informed or just make shit up.

but if you change your mind about something...

 

[DaveH]

Please, everyone knows that convention speaches are glurges. Gore made up crap during his glurges while running for office. Antsy Republicans called him on it, but ultimately no one cared. When you make non-intellectual emotional pleas using single mothers, the handicapped, or fictional war heroes... really, no one cares.

When you change your mind on an issue of substance presumably using your intellect... then people care.

 

[Celicar]

I love the ultra pathetic attempts by Bush supporters around here to ignore or fight damaging facts.

Who is this damaging? Bush? Schwarzenegger? Who?!?

 

[ShadowRed]

What is it with the religious right? Do they honestly believe that religion cannot survive without the expressed support of the government? Is Christianity so weak that if it's not in the lawbooks and enforced upon all it will crumble to pieces? Because that's what's being implied.

Dude that is exactly it. If everyone was left to their own devices, by default most people wouldn't choose to be Christian. That's why they want it on the money they try to claim anything of significence as coming from Christianity, even science now a days. Notice how religion changes to suit the time not the other way around. Once society moves so far away from Christian ideas then suddenly the ideas that where before, pagan, sinful or against God's law suddenly become God's law. At one point in time science was the devils work and people were being put to death for pointing out that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Now you have Christian "Scientist" who will point out in some obsure passage that the bible said this all along, before science. It's the same with the government. In order to guarentee they stay relavent they need to embed themselves into the one thing that trancends all society structures.