|
September 04, 2004
Lying? Or Falsification?
Calling Arnold Schwarzenegger a liar, Atrios links to this report that historians in Austria claim that Arnold could not have seen a Soviet tank in his native Styria: 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.That story might have been worth reporting by CNN had Arnold said he'd seen Soviet tanks in Styria. (But he didn't!) And what might have been worth reporting by Atrios (and others) was what even CNN reported: Margita Thompson, spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, defended Schwarzenegger's speech.NOTE: I wrote most of this post yesterday, but I decided to finish it (even though Tom Maguire has already covered much of the same ground), because I think that if it's fair to challenge unfair reporting in the Old Media, the same standard ought to apply to the New Media. It ought to be enough simply to show that Arnold never claimed there were Soviet tanks in Styria, because unless he said that he'd seen them there he can't logically be accused of saying he did say that. However considering the shrillness of the attacks against Arnold (who these days seems to be hated more than the religious right), I thought I should offer a little more. Anyway, here's the transcript of Schwarzenegger's remarks: When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria.Considering standard operating procedures under Stalin, I'd say such a belief would have been more than prudent. The Soviet sector was huge area of Austria occupied by Stalin's troops. Graz, where Arnold grew up, is in Styria, bordered by the Soviet sector directly to the north (shown as a large green area on this map): (Map via this web site.) The small red area inside the large green Soviet sector is Austria's capital, Vienna. Although it was being run by all four powers, in order to get there from anywhere in Austria it would have been necessary to travel through the surrounding Soviet sector. Vienna was just 75 miles from Graz, and while I don't know the exact mileage from Graz to the Soviet zone, it appears to be around 30-40 miles. (That's about a half-hour drive -- to reach Stalin's troops.) Here's some historical background: In early July 1945, the Allies agreed the borders dividing the country into the occupations zones, which had not been set beforehand unlike those of Germany. Vienna's city center came under four power control, but the remainder as divided into specific occupation zones. The Allied Council held ultimate authority in Austria, each power was represented by its Zonal commanders. Each power had the power of veto on decisions of the council.Having a huge portion of your country occupied by 40,000 troops loyal to Joseph Stalin and having to travel through that in order to reach the capital is a scenario most adults would find frightening, much less a child less than eight years old. Even the death of Stalin in 1953 did not effect their removal; Austria had to agree to "nonaligned" status, and thus had its national character shaped directly by Soviet hegemony. How many of Arnold's critics grew up with Stalin next door -- literally where his troops were a half an hour's drive away? (Or might some of them believe Stalin wasn't such a bad guy after all? Would they also belittle and doubt people who had to live next door to Hitler's troops?) The situation was serious enough that it was feared that Vienna would face (and Americans would have to defend against) a Berlin-style blockade: In 1945, Austria had been divided like Germany into four zones of occupation: a Soviet one in the East; an American zone west of it; a French zone in the Tyrol and Vorarlberg; and a British one in the southern provinces of Styria and Carinthia. Vienna like Berlin was divided into four allied sectors, but the center of the city was jointly administered by the four powers. Unlike in Berlin, where the western Allied had two airports in their sectors, their airfields near Vienna were in Soviet-controlled territory: Tulln-Langenlebarn for the Americans, and Schwechat - now Vienna International Airport - for the British and French. As an American study pointed out in the summer of 1948, in the case of a Soviet blockade "our forces would be trapped, unable to maintain themselves or to withdraw except by Soviet permission and on Soviet terms ... Our forces and their dependents would be at the mercy of the Soviet authorities and subject to whatever indignities Soviet policy might deem expedient."There are more details in the piece, but the point is, Austrians had every reason to be afraid, and children must have been terrified. What Americans called "the Cold War" from across the Atlantic would not have seemed quite as cold, or quite as distant. I am glad to see that the Americans stood ready to help. (Fortunately, of course, there was no blockade.) Schwarzenegger would have been 8 when the Russians finally pulled out, and 9 when the Hungarian refugees poured into Austria after the Soviet repression of the Hungarian Revolution. Arnold says he helped feed the refugees. I'm sure that will be doubted and questioned too; after all, the Hungarian freedom fighters were called "hooligans" by the lovers of Soviet peace. Considering Stalin's status as one of the greatest mass murderers of all time, why the haste to attack someone clearly in a position to have been menaced by him as a child? I realize politics is a partisan game, but of all the things to attack Arnold Schwarzenegger for, why this? If they want to make him into a liar, why make him into a liar about Communism? The transparency of the smear is so obvious that I can't help but wonder if he's simply being hated for being anti-Communist. If he is, I can't think of a better reason to love the guy. posted by Eric on 09.04.04 at 11:20 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Laughing at the failure of discourse?
Holiday Blogging The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
They hate him for being anti-Communist. And I, too, love him for it.