Austrian Archives Reveal Nazi Military Role of Actor's Father

[DUreader]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0814-07.htm


Published on Thursday, August 14, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times
Austrian Archives Reveal Nazi Military Role of
Actor's Father
by Tracy Wilkinson and Matt Lait

VIENNA — In July 1990, following news reports that his father was a Nazi, movie star Arnold
Schwarzenegger approached his friends at the Simon Wiesenthal Center and asked that they find
the truth.

" 'I don't know much about my father's past,' " Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of
the Wiesenthal Center, recalled Schwarzenegger's telling him. " 'I don't
know if it's good or bad, and I'd like you to find out.' "

Asking the Wiesenthal Center to handle the investigation was a logical
choice: The center, named after the famed Nazi hunter, had the resources
to conduct such a probe. And it was an institution that Schwarzenegger had
financially backed over the years.

After a two-month investigation, in which Simon Wiesenthal was involved,
the verdict was in: Gustav Schwarzenegger was indeed a member of the
Nazi party; he voluntarily applied for membership in 1938. But there was no
evidence that he was a war criminal. Nor had the Wiesenthal Center found
any evidence that the senior Schwarzenegger belonged to any of
Germany's notorious paramilitary units, such as the Sturmabteilungen (SA)
or the Schutzstaffel (SS), which were populated by some of Adolf Hitler's
most ardent supporters.

[SpiralHawk]

1. One has to wonder if Ahnold's father and Bush's Grandpappy

Prescott Bush -- the infamous and traitorous US-based Nazi sympathizer and banker -- ever shared a shot of schnapps together. What is it with Nazi spawn in US politics?

No capish.

[kendric]

83. no-no one realy has to

One has to wonder if Ahnold's father and Bush's Grandpappy Prescott Bush -- the infamous and traitorous US-based Nazi sympathizer and banker -- ever shared a shot of schnapps together. What is it with Nazi spawn in US politics?

seriously, :tinfoilhat:

[Turley]

2. What is the point of this actually?

Really, what's the point?

[gratuitous]

3. Just playing by the rules

The rules, that is, as laid down by the Republicans when it comes to "informed debate" on the candidates:

"'Look at Bill Clinton's mother, as opposed to George W.'s mother. Is your mother a barfly who gets used by men? Or is your mother a strong woman.' -- Republican pundit Barbara Olson, wife of Solicitor General Ted Olson, drawing some sharp, very sharp distinctions in an interview this week with Britain's Telegraph newspaper. We find it necessary to say that we always liked and admired the late Virginia Kelly" (Lloyd Grove, The Reliable Source, The Washington Post, July 27, 2001).

[Turley]

4. Congratulations

On stooping to Babara Olsen's level. I still don't see the point here.

[gratuitous]

5. I didn't say I endorsed it

I was merely trying to answer your question. If you don't like the answer, perhaps you should seek another one, but it's the one I found.

[jenk]

11. trying to destroy ahnuld

duh

every time "arnold" and "nazi past" are mentioned in the same sentence is a good thing/

[private_ryan]

12. hey Barbara, how are things in hell?

if you're a strong woman you'd still be alive...

[Garbo]

42. Disgusting

Quite possibly one of the most despicable things I have ever seen posted on this forum.

I would normally ask if you had any shame, but someone who can post that is obviously beyond the ability of feeling shame for their actions.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. Actually there IS a point to it. Arnold had the NERVE to toast

Kurt Waldheim at his wedding. He has since publicly done a mea-culpa on that one but one wonders if it was due to his SOMEDAY political aspirations that he did. By the time he apologized for it ( being stupid enough to toast a nazi sympathizer at a wedding attended by members of the Jewish community) he had already voiced his intent to get into government.

[QuietStorm]

41. What is up with people?

He donates money to a Jewish org. and that somehow clears this? Where is everyone? Of course this is just my opinion, but where is everyone? How loud does it have to get considering all the other family lineages we have going here. Come on people let's WAVE back at that secret in the corner. I know it is the in corner, but it's been waving at us for quite some time now!!

on edit: typos

[nolabels]

64. That's the point, some people consider that's how leaders lead

Here is a link, its a fun link I found to all them fun things (but am sure there are more)

http://arnoldschwarzenegger.newstrove.com/

[Zuni]

49. Waldheim

The story of Waldheim being a Nazi War Criminal is simply not true. Simon Wiesenthal himself investigated Waldheim and said he was fairly clean. Waldheim lied about his associations with war criminals towards the end of the war when he was in Military Intel, and that it is what caused the controversy.
Waldheim was never in the nazi party. The controversy surrounds his time as an intelligence officer (a junior, low ranking Lt.) at HQ in Yugoslavia. He never did anything or gave any orders but he undoubtedly knew of things and saw things.
People have, without knowing the truth, labelled this man as a war criminal and a Nazi when he was just a low grade intelligence officer.

[Iris]

66. this is why I hate conservatives

Why should anyone be judged on what someone in his family has done?

Of course, I do have issues with someone who benefits monetarily from what his family has done and has no qualms about it. Like the CEO of Ford Motor Company - his "grandpa" was a freak and he is acting like he was some great guy.

[IndianaGreen]

81. So Nader is right when he says that Dems are Republican-like, right?

Here is my reply to those that engage in this Republican-like behaviour:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=65809&mesg_id=65809#67585

[diamond14]

6. Arnold has contributed about $750,000 to Wiesenthal Center

that line says a lot about the relationship between Arnold and the Wiesenthal Center....it appears to be a 'quid pro quo'....it's never ceases to amaze me...what money can buy...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0814-07.htm

"Arnold Schwarzenegger has contributed about $750,000 to the Wiesenthal Center...."

[slackmaster]

7. All men must be held accountable for their fathers' crimes

For at least 10 generations.

:eyes:

[Turley]

8. Quid Pro Quo for what?

Explain what benefit he realized. I'm baffled.

[Cocoa]

10. for covering up his father's past

I think that's the implication. It seems pretty clear to me, it baffles me that it baffles you.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. No a quid pro quo for toasting Waldheim ( a Nazi) at his wedding

in Los Angeles. It was tantamount to toasting Hitler.

[Turley]

19. ????

What do his donations to the Wiesenthal Center have to do with his Waldheim toast?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. His toast to Waldheim at his wedding offended a number of rather

prominent Jewish Angelino's. That was in 86. Beginning in the early 90's Arnie started discussing his future plans to hold office in California...something he cannot win statewide without the Jewish vote ( or at least a percentage of it).

[Turley]

29. So you mean the Wiesenthal Center is buyable

As I mentioned to Cocoa below, I doubt this. OTOH perhaps they didn't push hard enough to get access to the files held by the Austrian Gov't. I'm sure if they really wanted someone they'd pay a few bribes to get access. OTOH Anie's father seemed to be not much more than a foot-soldier so why go to so much trouble?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

31. No I am saying the fact that Arnold contributed to them bodes well

as an apology to the Jewish community for toasting a NAZI at his wedding.

[QuietStorm]

44. Oh I must have misunderstood you than.

because I don't buy it.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

46. No you understood me.it bodes well for those that don't know all the facts

i.e. "how can he have any Nazi sympathies...he contributed...see?"

[QuietStorm]

50. Okay

because it is bad enough most people seem to be walking around in fantasy land, but I must say even on certain forums I can not understand why this obvious "nazi's lurking within" is not getting more play. Like I said somewhere else here it seems as if discussing it outright is discouraged. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me when the undertones come up more people wave them away as meaning nothing. And I am not just talking about Arnold here.

There is much shit rising to the surface now. And it seems to be rising faster because of this coming election and this Bush Klan does not want it's power usurped. There are many strange bedfellows and all in bed are armed to the teeth. It seems all the chickens have come home to roost. Maybe it's payback time. I don't know but it gnaws at me and I don't like it.

Because in it's most extreme form perhaps we are looking at both extremes that might be cut from the same cloth. And still it seems few want to confront all those plaguing questions. I just draw the line with Arnold.

If you can't delineate Arnold well then there is no hope. It is not a coincidence he's making this play for California regardless of what he knows about the issues. He doesn't need to know. He takes California he did his fair share for "the homeland," "the realm" (if you are familiar with that expression), and as he himself said, continuing Bush's "Crusade."

Is it accidental feminists are now being considered Nazi and there is this backlash against gays? None of this is coincidental. Who all did Hitler go after beside those of Jewish faith, but enough if no one wants to look this in the eye.

I thought that I had understood the first time which was why I posted those two other posts to you.

[Zuni]

51. again

Waldheim was a junior officer in Military Intelligence in the German Army, not the SS and he was not a nazi Party member.
He never ordered or participated in atrocities. He worked at a desk after he was wounded early in the war.
No atrocities have ever been linked to him and he was never a nazi party member.

[Muddleoftheroad]

77. Irresponsible

Boy that's one of the most irresponsible comments in this ridiculous and juvenile thread.

[Snellius]

16. What is the "quid pro quo"?

Hier agreed, saying Schwarzenegger is shamed and embarrassed by his father's past. He said the actor has been a strong supporter of Jews and Jewish causes over the years. Arnold Schwarzenegger has contributed about $750,000 to the Wiesenthal Center and has helped to raise millions more by chairing fund-raisers and other events.

Perhaps, especially given his father's complicity, he sincerely wanted to do something to make amends. I don't understand what he would have to gain.

I give him credit for confronting his past, even if painful.

[Cocoa]

18. here's the potential quid pro quo

But documents in the Austrian State Archives in Vienna, reviewed by The Times this week, show that Gustav Schwarzenegger had a deeper involvement in Hitler's regime than the Wiesenthal Center had uncovered. Hier said the documents were unavailable to the center's researchers when they investigated the matter.

One document in particular shows that Gustav Schwarzenegger was indeed a member of the Sturmabteilungen, also known as the "storm troopers" or "brownshirts." He joined the SA on May 1, 1939, according to the entry in the archive file — about six months after the storm troopers helped launch Kristallnacht, the Night of the Broken Glass, when Jewish homes, businesses and synagogues were attacked across Germany and Austria and thousands of Jews were hauled off to concentration camps.

[Snellius]

21. But isn't the point here that he wanted to expose his past?

VIENNA — In July 1990, following news reports that his father was a Nazi, movie star Arnold
Schwarzenegger approached his friends at the Simon Wiesenthal Center and asked that they find the truth.

The article suggests that Schwarzenegger was not trying to cover up his past but to confront it. Perhaps it's all a hoax, as you suggest, but just because there is more to the story than Wiesenthal found, doesn't mean he fraudulently tried to suppress it. It's also just as hard to believe that Simon Wiesenthal would personally be part of such a hoax just for the sake of the money.

[Cocoa]

24. maybe Arnold knew all about his father

and his going to the W.C. was not to find out anything, but to remove a black mark that may damage his career. Probably more complicated than that, but that's the general idea I think of what this would be about.

I have no idea if this is true, this is the first I've read of it.

But I agree with you, this would be more of a scandal for the Wiesenthal Center than for Arnold. Who cares about Arnold, he's just a bad actor and an aspiring right-wing puppet. The W.C. has an actual reputation.

[diamond14]

30. maybe like bush*, arnold hides his obligations to pay reparations ...

here's a link to bush* inheritance...an inheritance of blood money from auschwitz, where bush* grandpa personally supervised Jewish slave laborers...worked them to death...this article was written by the President of the Florida Holocaust Museum, and includes bush* obligation to pay reparations....imagine bush* going to a Rabbi and asking him to find out about his grandpa....IMO, there's a quid pro quo for arnold....

http://www.clamormagazine.org/bush.pdf

let's not forget that many Nazi "brownshirts' became wealthy by stealing everything from their Jewish victims...artwork, gold, jewelry, property...the brownshirts were into getting everything they could...and many benefitted grandly...

it seems odd, the little "arnold came penniless to America"...because America doesn't allow that...it almost sounds like the bush* story about the "just a regular guy raised in Midland Texas", when bush* actually attended high school at a private boarding academy "Andover Academy", his parents houses were in Kennebunkport Maine, and Houston, TX....and bush* spent his college years at an eastern coast college...but many still believe the 'bush* was raised in Midland Texas' lie...

the area where arnold was raised in Graz, Austria is a very wealthy area...the old "no frig, no heating...blah, blah..."...having visited that area many many times, there are many beautiful houses that were heated (and are still heated) with wood stoves, and used ICE in an ice-box (no frig), the barn was attached to the house....there was nothing poor about it, these Austrian homes are VERY comfortable...

there is a BIG question about arnold owning reparations for money inherited from his father's crimes...perhaps this is why arnold's public-relations-person puts out a story about poor little boy came to america penniless (one has to wonder how much Jewish people's gold/jewels were in his pockets, inherited from his dad, just like bush* inheritance)...

[robbedvoter]

40. How touching! Arnie is not quite so nazi, but Davis HAS to resign

in your book. You have been bashing Davis, Clinton, the Democrats but seem the treat the little nazi-groper friend of Ken, Rove and busjco with kid gloves. Are you watching too much teevee perhaps?

[stickdog]

71. Yeah, it's hard to believe someone would whitewash someone else's

father's past for $1,000,000.

:eyes:

[happyslug]

72. But the SA were acquitted at Nuremberg.

At the post WWII Nuremberg Trials, the Nazi party itself, the SS and various other related political organizations were found “Guilty” of not only violating the ban on aggressive war (i.e. War Crimes) but also of crimes as humanity (i.e. the Death Camps etc). The SA was NOT convicted on either crime (More from the fact that Hitler had gutted the SA in 1934 to appease the German Army and other Supporters than any real effort of the SA to be crime free).

Thus Arnold's Father membership in the SA is almost meaningless.

[Cocoa]

74. but this is not a legal argument

No one is suggesting that his father should be prosecuted. This is about politics and ideology.

Interesting about the SA being acquitted, however. Thanks for that info, it's a bit surprising.

[Snellius]

23. Simon Wiesenthal would take a bribe to cover for a Nazi?

Is that the "quid pro quo"?

[diamond14]

32. 'quid pro quo' is NOT a bribe...here's a definition to help you learn

quid pro quo (plural quid pro quos)

noun

1. something done in exchange: something given or done in exchange for something else

2. returning of favor: the giving of something in return for something else, often in a spirit of cooperation



http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=quid+pro+quo

-----------------------------------------
bribe

transitive and intransitive verb (past bribed, past participle bribed, present participle brib¡¤ing, 3rd person present singular bribes)

persuade somebody with enticement: to give somebody money or some other incentive to do something, especially something illegal or dishonest


noun (plural bribes)

incentive to persuade somebody: money or some other incentive that is given to persuade somebody to do something, especially something illegal or dishonest

<14th century. From Old French briber or brimber ¡°to beg,¡± from bribe ¡°morsel of food given to a beggar,¡± of unknown [br />

[walkon]

9. Something More

A little more, a little different.

I think it is important to understand, as much as possible, the backgrounds of people who want to rule over us. You know the saying, "The nuts don't fall far from the trees", is one to keep in mind - but you gotta know something about the "tree", right?

From the author of Arnold's unauthorized biography:

http://web.mid-day.com/smd/play/2003/march/46822.htm

snip

The actor, who was born in 1947, had no idea his father was a Nazi until 1984, when he contacted the Wiesenthal Centre for information regarding his father’s war record. He was told about the Nazi Party membership and was assured that Gustav had not been a member of the SS, nor was he on any war crimes list.

But that is not the full story. Documents lodged in the Austrian State Archives in Vienna, only now available as 30 years have elapsed since
Gustav’s death, give the most detailed account yet of that role.
They show that not only did he join the Nazi party but was also a member of the SA (Sturmabteilung or stormtroopers), the brown-shirted Nazi paramilitary wing made up of the most enthusiastic of Hitler’s followers.

snip

The Schwarzeneggers lived in a house with no heating, plumbing or fridge. Aurelia had to cope with her husband’s brutal temper and violent possessiveness. Gustav was so protective of her that he forbade her to wear sleeveless dresses in summer. At times, he would even accuse her of having been unfaithful to him, screaming that
Arnold was a bastard.

From an early age, Arnold was terrified of his father, who gloried in pitting his two sons against each other, making them fight, then humiliating the loser. Years later, Arnold would say, “My father always acted like a general. I grew up in a disciplined atmosphere.”

snip

[thebeaglehaslanded]

13. If you don't believe a father's politics help mold a son,

then you're ignoring the BFEE and its chain of political corruption.

[ScotTissue]

17. Rule Number One

Rule Number One: when attacking Arnold Schwarzenegger, don't make him look good.

" 'I don't know much about my father's past,' " Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of
the Wiesenthal Center, recalled Schwarzenegger's telling him. " 'I don't
know if it's good or bad, and I'd like you to find out.' "

Schwarzenegger's determination to know the truth--good or ill--makes him look good, IMHO.

[The Sushi Bandit]

20. Chicago Tribune's: Schwarzenegger's dad was Nazi storm trooper

"research indicates that Gustav Schwarzenegger was indeed a member of the Sturmabteilungen, also known as "storm troopers" or "brown shirts."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/

[CheshireCat]

22. His father's political stance

should not make any difference in sizing Arnold up.

A person should not be held accountable for the action of their parents. I know the repubs do this all the time, ie Clinton's mother, but it doesn't make it right. We shouldn't waste our time trying to tie him to his father's actions when there are so many other issues to diss him on.

How would you like to be held responsible for the actions of your parents? I sure as hell don't want it.

[Cocoa]

25. it's different with Nazi storm troopers

especially if there's a coverup involved.

[Turley]

28. Why is it different?

Than say, having a father who was an axe-murderer, or a rapist?

As it happens Cocoa, my wife's grandfather was a Nazi. Her parents are actually quite well-adjusted Social-Democrats. I also probably know personally dozens of people who's fathers (and sometimes mothers) were Nazi party members and for the life of me I can't think of one who shows any tendency whatsoever towards NS politics. Mostly, it's quite the opposite. The vast majority show an inordinate level of guilt over their parents' past.

That's why I tend to accept that Arnold embraced the W.C. as a way of somehow atoning for the sins of his father. Unless I'm reading you completely wrong, the tone of your posts makes me think you are quick to accept the notion that Arnold and the guys at the W.C. are guilty of a cover-up and that the W.C. specifically is buyable. I tend to doubt it but then again he has brought in millions for them.

In any case, I've always sort of admired Arnold and just because I may not like his politics (whatever the hell they are), I'm certainly not going to hold his father's sins against him. I think that's incredibly cheap.

[Cocoa]

33. your inlaws should show guilt

their parents were Nazis.

If they run for office, they should be completely open about that past, and shouldn't attempt to cover it up.

Also they should refrain from toasting Kurt Waldheim, and while they're at it they should try not to portray violent supermen in movies.

I have no idea if Arnold is guilty of a coverup. But I reject the idea that this is a non-issue.

[Turley]

37. Oh really?

My mother-in-law was four years old at war's end and emerged an orphan. Her refugee train was strafed repeatedly during the retreat from Breslau and she saw her own cousin cut in half.

Likewise my father-in-law was six years old at war's end. He didn't see his father again until the mid-1950's after his mother had remarried.

Whether or not they choose to feel or show guilt for events completely beyond their control is their own business. You would be exactly the last person on Earth to make that judgement. And I do mean the last person.

[Cocoa]

45. you are the one that brought your in-laws into this

But I used the wrong word when I said guilt. It's not quite guilt that the descendents of Nazis should feel, it's something less, closer to what Arnold was professing to show when he contacted the Wiesenthal Center.

But you're going way beyond Arnold. You're saying it's not an issue at all, and getting defensive when people suggest is is an issue. Defensiveness is not the right attitude the descendents of Nazis should be allowed to take.

[Turley]

53. Who the heck are you

to decide what attitude someone is "allowed" to take, especially based on a benign attribute such as their descendency? You sound exactly like a Nazi yourself with that sort of bull.

[stickdog]

73. Exactly like a Nazi?

Come on.

It's not exactly like a Nazi to suggest that attempting to cover up the fact that you dad was a Nazi stormtrooper might be a valid political issue.

Nor is it exactly like a Nazi to suggest that direct descendents of Nazi stormtroopers who want to run for CA's governorship might want to take it upon themselves to renounce their father's actions in the strongest terms possible.

[Turley]

80. Careful readership 101

You apparently didn't pay any attention to what was being discussed. If you're really that interested have a re-read and feel free to join the fracas.

[kendric]

84. Stronger man then me...

to decide what attitude someone is "allowed" to take, especially based on a benign attribute such as their descendency? You sound exactly like a Nazi yourself with that sort of bull.

You're defenitely a stronger man then me, Turley. This is where I would tell the ignorant fuck to fuck off...

[Cocoa]

87. see the DU rules

no personal attacks.

No calling people ignorant fucks, or telling people to fuck off.

Welcome to DU anyway! :hi:

[diamond14]

34. you admire all the brutal KILLING that arnold makes money off??

arnold is the biggest perpetrator of violence EVER...his films glorify KILLING as something that is great and cool, and that all young Americans should strive for...it is films like the terminator that glorify KILLING in the extreme and encourage more columbines and other street massacres...arnold should be ashamed of his films...anyone with a shred of decency would not make money on violence...

his terminator style actually does remind you of the nazi killings in poland...just brutally shoot lots of innocent people after making them take off their clothes and dig their own graves...arnold could be imitating his own father in his films...

[Turley]

36. I'm impressed

by your commitment to artistic freedom. What kind of liberal are you anyway?

Has your anti-violence zeal led you to burn copies of the Iliad? Do you protest every performance of Don Giovanni, Tosca, or MacBeth (talk about bodycounts)?

[Cocoa]

48. artistic freedom means we have to like everything?

To express a negative opinion of movies is the same as book-burning?

[Turley]

56. The relevant quote was

"anyone with a shred of decency would not make money on violence..."


Obviously stylized violence has always been prevalent in arts and litarature. Amen's quote is silly on the face of it. Whether or not Arnie's "art" is "good art" or "bad art" is besides the point. You can't very well condemn someone for "making money on violence" without very obviously including the likes of Homer, Shakespeare, or Alexander Dumas or the various arts patrons who promote their works in modern times.

[Cocoa]

57. so how is that akin to book-burning?

You also compared me to a Nazi, above.

Can you cool it, please? It's just dumb.

[Turley]

61. Then answer the question

who in the heck are you to decide what "attitude" someone is "allowed" to have based on the benign attribute of who their parents were? Just who in the heck do you think you are? That is rather a dictatorial attitude on your part so you'll just have to excuse me for having made the rather obvious comparison.

[Cocoa]

65. forget the word allowed, then

I didn't mean to say I get to dictate anyone's attitudes.

There is a collective responsibility, however, and it does fall more heavily on the descendants of the Nazis than on others.

Just as the U.S.'s responsibility for the slavery in its past falls heavier on whites.

[QuietStorm]

55. Yes, but it is a matter of how much more graphically depicted violence is.

look at the poetics, and pentameter, those works many are verse - some are tradegies or morality plays. Arnold's movies make the violence look glamorous which seems to advocate its use as a solution of some kind - rather than to hold it in question. The messages are blurred like tarentino's contribution to the glorification of violence as somewhat a trend utilized for dumb and dumber. You can not compare this to the classics.

[Turley]

58. I don't think so

I'm not an art critic but I'm sure there are many who would argue the modern techniques are as much an artform as the actual acting (making no claims that Arnie is a good actor mind you). I'm also almost sure that, had the Bard access to modern special effects he'd have used them in MacBeth. I'll also note that I've seen opera productions recently which portrayed extraordinarily realistic post-battlefield scenes and one that even had a nice decapitated head (looked really real!).

As for Arnie's films glamourizing violence and advocating its use as a solution I'll just say that most of our classics do precisely the same thing and I'll introduce anything at all by Alexander Dumas as exhibit "A".

[QuietStorm]

62. So you don't think so...

so perhaps we would agree to one degree and disagree to another degree.

One can not discount the beauty of the language and the higher quality of esthetic involved in the classics and as they were enacted in their day much was implied. Left to the imagination. Also there is something to be said: To across the board blame today's film medium for violence within society today would not be altogether accurate. Societies have been more or less barbaric going back to before the Roman gladiators (which to some extent it could be argued America seems to be revisiting with this war and some of the recent barbarism we have been subjected to - Saddam's sons come to mind). To some degree the continued use of gratuitious violence feeds some base curiousity in the human being, and depending on the human, it can be argued that gratuitious graphic depictions of violence (for violence sake) will reinforce baser thoughts and actions in those with sociopathic tendencies.

I can not speculate on what the bard would do today. One could argue the Bard would be cut out entirely, his script adapted by a ghost writer and adapted as best it can be to the visual formula for action sex and violence which seems to have proven pay dirt at the boxoffice. This hollywood formula catering to the sophmoric apetities of the moviegoer. While there are those would argue modern special effects and such are a craft, I would argue that was irrelevant to the subject of formula and content and ask is it wise to always reinforce the most voyeristic and baser aspects of human nature?

I am not against the use of violence and sex per se. When it becomes gratuitous is a whole other story. MacBeth is one of the Bard's histories. King Lear one of his tragedies also based on history. Same with the greek classics based on history or mythology.

Today higher thought, plot, character development craft of script (even acting) does tend to take a back seat to formula. And while I wouldn't be the one heading a censorship campaign when it comes to gratuitious violence especially that which just reinforces the more antiquated sociatal conditioning, I feel discretion and debate is warranted.

[QuietStorm]

63. addendum

BTW I am not familiar with Dumas, but I am not sure it would bare that much relevance to the thoughts I have expressed in my above post.

[Character Assassin]

67. I see you haven't seen the movie

...it is films like the terminator that glorify KILLING in the extreme and encourage more columbines and other street massacres.

Yawn. The Terminator did not glorify killing. There was killing in it, to be sure. But glorified? Get real.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

35. Waldheim was already WIDELY known for his Nazi leanings when

Arnold toasted him...it appears Arnold realized he made a BAD career move in 86 to toast him at his wedding...it goes specifically to whether his inquiry was to get it out in the open and offer up some deniability or to get CLEAR on his past. Given that he PRAISED a NAZI at his wedding, I would suggest it was the first explanantion.

One can hardly toast a Nazi and be filled with remorse for his past...but one can toast a Nazi, contribute to a group that investigates them and act like all is well.

[QuietStorm]

38. THANK YOU

man it is like the fucking secret in the corner waving at us, but will we wave back?

[Turley]

43. Well I had a look

Because my memory's not that good. The Schwarzeneggers got married a few weeks after the first articles appeared in Viennese tabloids accusing Waldheim of being a Nazi. Tough call.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

47. Not really.

[QuietStorm]

54. "If there are angels

I hope they are organized along the lines of the mafia" LOL

I just notice that!

[Turley]

59. The question is

what Arnold, or anybody for that matter, knew at the time.

Your assertion that Waldheim was already "widely known" for his Nazi-leanings doesn't seem to hold much water. The revelations in Viennese tabloids were only a few weeks old and were hotly disputed at the time by Austrians in general. Old Kurt at the time was merely known as the former head of the U.N. IIRC it took over a year for the international community to reach any sort of consensus on whether the charges were true and even now they are disputed by many.

This shouldn't be taken as a defense of Waldheim, but saying his Nazi-leanings were widely known at the time is simply not true. The revelations, when they came, were actually quite shocking.

[stickdog]

75. Sure is.

Especially if you are a Nazi sympathizer yourself ...

[Zuni]

52. BS

Waldheim was never a nazi. He was in the German Army, same as 12 million other men.

[realFedUp]

27. LA Times story on this

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-father14aug14,1,1956941.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The Austrian documents also show that Gustav Schwarzenegger served with German Army units that saw some of the most brutal bloodshed of World War II, including the invasions of Poland and France and the German rampage through Russia and the siege of Leningrad.

As a military policeman, he appears to have been in theaters of the war where atrocities were committed by his army. But there is no way to know from the documents whether he played a role.

"He was in the thick of the battle during the most difficult times," said Michael Berenbaum, a Holocaust scholar who has written 14 books on the subject. "Clearly, he was in proximity to some of the most horrific military and nonmilitary killings. He was in the heart of hell."
-continued-

[robbedvoter]

39. Arnie loves daddy's palls (not just Waldheim):

http://www.codoh.com/newsdesk/961117.HTML



But he
maintained less respectable friendships back in Austria.

In 1986 he invited Kurt Waldheim to his wedding in Massachusetts.
Waldheim, the former United Nations secretary-general, was in the middle
of winning his election as president of Austria and "forgetting" his own
role in Austria's Nazi wartime record. A year later Waldheim was banned
from entering America.

Schwarzenegger has also been photographed with Jorg Haider, leader of
Austria's right-wing Freedom party who last year was filmed at a secret
reunion of the Waffen SS, the military arm of the Nazi SS, praising them
as "decent people".

Haider claimed not to know that the Waffen SS had been designated a
criminal organisation at the Nuremberg trials.

[FredScuttle]

60. non-issue

I wouldn't care if his father was Grand Marshal of the Luftwaffe or High Commandant of the Afrikka Corps...Ah-nold isn't a Nazi. It gets us nowhere to purport otherwise.

[Zuni]

68. good point

no one can control what their parents did before they were born

[w4rma]

69. "…I first got to know him, his politics were to the right of Genghis Khan"

Behind Fame, Actor's Policies Are a Mystery
Schwarzenegger Has 60 Days to Define Self

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 7 -- The famed bodybuilder whom film director George Butler became friends with more than two decades ago never would have had a prayer as a political figure in today's California.

"When I first got to know him, his politics were to the right of Genghis Khan," said Butler, whose 1977 documentary "Pumping Iron" launched Arnold Schwarzenegger's long, lucrative celebrity career.

That was before Schwarzenegger joined Hollywood's elite. Or married journalist Maria Shriver, a member of America's Democratic royal family, the Kennedys. Or saw Los Angeles engulfed in rioting. Or knew that his father belonged to the Nazi party during World War II.

"His thinking has definitely evolved over the years," Butler said. "I would call him a kind of Shriver Republican now. His views on many issues have been tempered by Maria and her family."
…
But Schwarzenegger has spent the summer assembling an experienced campaign team. It consists mostly of the brain trust that guided Wilson through two terms as governor. Aides have conducted polls, listened to voter focus groups about Schwarzenegger's strengths and weaknesses as a candidate, and prepared policy stands on many issues.
…
"It came from out of the blue," Hier said. "He wanted to know if we could research his father's background. We did, and we showed him that his father had been a member of the Nazi party. Since then, Arnold has taken great interest in what we do. And it has definitely had an impact on him."
…
Butler, the filmmaker, said he believes Schwarzenegger's politics soon will captivate many voters. "In the old days, I guess you could say that he was not a big civil rights fan, and he was against things like any kind of Democratic legislation for inner cities," Butler said. "But he has really evolved from that thinking.
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31316-2003Aug7

[0rganism]

76. "America's Democratic royal family, the Kennedys"

Give me a goddam break. One Kennedy is a senator. His brothers were murdered before they could fulfill their promising political careers. Hardly a "royal family" of any sort.

This kind of bizarre partisan editorial insertion is why I dropped my subscription to the Washington Post weekly.

You'll see them compare Dems to aristocrats, and make reference to "limousine liberals", but will the Post ever deign to call the Bushes "America's Republican royalty"? Let me know when it happens.

[rocketdem]

70. so what?

Don't clutter the issues with non-issues. Rise above.

It's important to attack Arnold's lack of qualifications and/or political stances and agenda because those are the issues in any campaign. Going after his dead father is petty and distracting. It does nothing but make his opponents look small and mean.

[roguevalley]

78. at the risk of being crucified...

I read a book, whose title eludes me but it can be found
by checking the library under Waldheim <which is part of
the title, like Waldheim Files> and you will find a book
written by the chief nazi hunter in the US state dept.

He wrote it when he discovered that Waldheim was a nazi.
He found the evidence that Mr. Weisenthal either overlooked,
missed or dismissed. It broke his heart and it broke mine
but he felt so strongly that the truth be out that he
wrote the book. He presented the case to state that got
Waldheim blocked from America.

It demonstrates that not only is Waldheim lying about
not being an active and participating nazi in war crimes,
but why Weisenthal -for reasons he outlined that for Mr.
Weisenthal seemed reasonable and right but in the end
aren't ... I believe it was he didn't find it, got
caught flat footed and therefore had to stonewall his
own mistake by standing by Waldheim - but don't quote me
(G) - tried to give him a pass. It showed also that among his
peers in this area of criminal detection, his credibility and reputation had been diminished and how badly people in this
fielf feel about this turn of affairs. Mr. Weisenthal's
adamant support of Waldheim actually hindered the search for information and his blacklisting from America.

I wish I had a better grasp of the title but it was a
riveting book and a must read for anyone who still believes
that Kurt Waldheim was a lesser nazi. I will post it if I
can find it when I scan the library online indexes.

As for Arnold, he has publicly saluted a known nazi
criminal and makes no apologies. For me and for feelings
of outrage else who has any decency about what these
criminals did to this world, that matters. His old man
is likely to be proven a nazi criminal in the new evidence.
That matters to me. The evidence can be found apparently.
How did the Weisnethal Center not find it? Makes you wonder.
It makes me very, very sad.

RV, off to check library indexes.

[alaine]

88. This is not a non-issue.

Does he agree or disagree with his father's views? Does anyone really believe that Arnold's father did not make his views about Jews known? Has he ever told a story of his father regretting in his participation in the stormtroopers? Or maybe did Gustav brag about it?

Racist parents usually raise their children with the same prejudices they have. Arnold needs to be loudly proclaiming his opposition to the anti-semitism of his father, and getting his story together because this will be an issue for him, like it or not.

Look at the racism that comes creeping out of politican's mouths years down the road, and people are so taken aback, as if it had not been there all along...Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, etc. If I were Jewish I would sure as hell want to hear Arnold very strongly distancing himself from his father's beliefs. He is entering the political arena in an attempt to become a public servant, employed by people his theoretical prejudices may affect in a very real way. I personally think he is a total moron, although he does seem to be socially liberal, if he's a fiscal conservative that just means practically eliminating all taxation and de-funding congress so that there is no money to fund social programs and safety nets for the poor, especially children. What good does my gay marriage do me if I am poor and jobless without a chance of social assistance, because none exists anymore to help me? They can Nazi the hell out of him for all I care.

[IndianaGreen]

79. This is the same smear the GOP used against Gen. Shalikashvili

General Shalikashvili was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the Clinton Administration. When he was nominated for the JCS, it was revealed that his father was a Nazi. Here is a bit about that, please notice how similar the smear is to the one being used against Arnold:

Jeff Cooper's Commentaries
Previously Gunsite Gossip
Vol. 1, No. 6 2 September 1993

General Shalikashvili, the prospective head of the US Army, is, as his name denotes, of Georgian extraction. (Stalin's true name was Dzhugashavili.) Now it turns out that a group Nazi-hunters has discovered that the general's father was an SS officer in World War II. (He was described in the press as a major in the SS, but the SS did not have such rank. He was probably a sturmbahnfuhrer.) Those who follow such things know that the Germans gathered together ethnic divisions from all over Europe in which men of the same linguistic and cultural background could serve together. The Georgian SS division conducted itself with distinction in normal military action, but a good many people seem to think that anybody who was ever a member of the SS was automatically a war criminal, and they seek to tar the new American Chief of Staff with the Nazi brush. Apart from the fact that the general never knew his father, having split with his family for the United States early on, the notion that the military record of a father should be held against his son is a little too biblical for my taste.

http://www.neozone.co.uk/JeffCooper/jeff1_6.html

The same smear was used by some of those that were opposed to President Clinton's intervention in Yugoslavia:

Statement to the Anti-War Rally at Times Square in New York City Against Sending troops to Bosnia

by Barry Lituchy

Coalition Against Western Intervention in the Former Yugoslavia

15 December 1995

They also think that we are ignorant of the fact that the leaders of the Nazi death camps in the Balkans are still alive. Those responsible for the holocaust in the Balkans during World War II have never been brought to justice.

They must think that we do not know who the leader of the American
military is. We know who he is. His name is General John Shalikashvili. His father was a high ranking officer in Hitler's army in Russia. He was a Nazi war criminal and now his son is the leader of the American armed forces! You need strong Nazi credentials to lead America's armed forces!

http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosta/awc/01.html

What's the difference between the two parties again?

[Cocoa]

82. that sounds like a Serb nationalist

Not necessarily a republican. Republicans were not the only ones opposed to Balkan intervention. Some Democrats, and Greens, were also opposed.

Rush Limbaugh is vigorously defending Arnold against these Nazi father stories. Does that mean that the Greens and the GOP really are working together?

[Zuni]

86. ANSWER

ANSWER supported the Serbs after it was known that the US was against them. Ramsey Clark serves as Slobodan Milosevic's laywer, and has turned his propaganda machine to support any faction that the US is against.

[Zuni]

85. I thought he was conscripted

and served as a soldier in the Waffen SS (where hundreds of thousands of foreigners served by 1945), later to defect to the Allies in Italy, I believe.
I am not an expert, but these slanderous accusations calling sons of former SS soldiers Nazi war criminals are ignorant and revolting to me.

[Turley]

89. I think you missed on this one Indy

WJC brought Shali in precisely because he was palatable to Republicans who supported his nomination.

[Snellius]

90. Arnold admires Hitler and JESUS?

Why? Because they both were powerful and famous. We report, you decide. Fair and balanced.

Other allegations may be refloated, like the one Charles Fleming included in a March 1992 Spy magazine article -- confirmed, he wrote, by "a businessman and longtime friend of Schwarzenegger's" -- that in the '70s Arnold "enjoyed playing and giving away records of Hitler's speeches." There is also the allegation of Arnold's having said on-camera, during the filming of "Pumping Iron" (1977) by director George Butler, that he "admired" Hitler. This last allegation was included in a 1991 Schwarzenegger biography by Wendy Leigh, who quoted Mr. Butler as her main source. In the summer of 1992 Mr. Schwarzeneger won a libel suit against Ms. Leigh, not regarding her book but a 1988 article she helped write for the British tabloid News of the World that included other allegations. Part of that settlement was an apology from Ms. Leigh, which read, "Mr. Schwarzenegger has never espoused Nazi or anti-Semitic views, has never been an admirer of Hitler's evil regime, and he did not admire or approve of his father's alleged conduct."
In an interview last summer, Mr. Butler did not dispute Ms. Leigh's reporting about Mr. Schwarzenegger's Hitler remark except to say that "the context was power." In the "Pumping Iron" interview in question (an outtake that was never included in the film), Mr. Butler recalls that Mr. Schwarzenegger "said he admired Jesus Christ for the same reason. He was basically saying that he admired famous people and that he wanted to be famous as well."

http://www.s-t.com/daily/12-96/12-25-96/c06ae100.htm

[Undemcided]

91. Sins of the father.

How the hell does this make Arnie a Nazi? He wasn't even born until 1947.

What about Ted Kennedy as well? His father’s political career was ended due to his Nazi sympathies.

Let's just focus on the issues.