Talk:Kurt Waldheim/Archive 1

Archive 1

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.41.13 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2003 (UTC)

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.241.164 (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2003 (UTC)

What really did 'feldgrau' Kurt Walheim, when, where and to whom? These are questions with not one answer after a 20 years request. After read all about Herr Waldheim as a 'war criminal' I am shocked. Because: what did he wrong, exactly? to whom? where? when? Did he 'certainly' shoted any allied POW or give orders to do so, killed any jew or something? Here we had a 'war criminal' with no any war crime noticed or quoted or recorded against him!

Its say that Waldheim belonged to the SA (Ernst Röhm) before enlisted the Heer (German Army). Well, at the Nürmberg trials was the SS (Himmler) guilted as 'criminal organization', and the SA was not. In other words: if Waldheim have belonged to the SS, sure and automatically he becomes a war criminal, but is not if he belonged the SA. Therefore, is not there any 'crime alegation' against Waldheim during his SA service

And about Waldheim Heer term service, there is not any notice about nothing. One can think, in a 'deductive way' as Sherlock Holmes used to do, that 'Sperle order' over revenge was on, and the liutenant Waldheim have the duty to put on, but... making or doing what to who, exactly? In other words: there is not any declaration coming from a crime suvirvor, or a civilian massacred, or an allied military prosecutor, any record, any photo, any nothing versus Herr Waldheim.

The probes in Waldheim benefit are the probes absence. Under this circumstances, any court, at any time or place, have had declared Kurt Waldheim 'not guilty' from war crimes allegations.

My very personal point of view is: If Waldheim was a 'war criminal' just for being a defeated soldier, well, this is the same for liutenant Helmut Schmidt. Or actor Hardy Kruger (HitlerJugend's NAPOLA disciple), or Hans Martin Schleyer: businessman, kidnaped and murdered by Baader / Meinhoff 'ultra reds' terrorists -and former SS. And the same for over 6 million germans soldiers enlisted between 1939 / 1945, aged 16 to 60.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavierestimated (talk • contribs) 13:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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 December 2003 (UTC)

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 April 2004 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johann7ogan (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

He had been a member of the so-called "Reiter-SS" - the SS Cavalry - being the only SS section that wasn't declared a criminal organization during the Nuremberg trials. Many members of the "Reiter-SS" were rather German Nationalists ("Deutsch-National") than National Socialists (i.e. Nazi). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.208.3.57 (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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 April 2004 (UTC)

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)

If you want a citation for this discussion, try the Bassett book in "Further Reading" - Bassett says inter alia Waldheim has always denied contact with communist intelligence, but anyone familiar with the methods of blackmail and entrapment which such services employ cannot fail to think of Waldheim as an obvious choice for such tactics. The Daily Telegraph obituary says such allegations were never proven and seem improbable...Files released in 2001 disclosed that the CIA had suspected Waldheim of having been blackmailed by the Russians over his Nazi past, but the documents also debunked claims that he had worked as an American informant. Testbed 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Testbed

Just found a source which may help this debate (such as it is - however I can imagine the issue returning in the future and it would be good to have the reference available). On April 28th 2001, The New York Times covered the issue of the newly released CIA files referred to above. The newspaper quoted Professor Richard Breitman, a history professor at American University who headed the Nazi War Crimes Working Group (set up to supervise the declassification of files under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act of 1998): The files did not suggest that Mr Waldheim was a CIA agent or informer, nor did they show that the Soviet Union was aware of his past and used the information to blackmail him while he was secretary general.Testbed 18:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The exact text from the press release of the Working Group (currently available online at www.archives.gov) runs

The IWG Historical Staff concludes that the files being opened provide evidence ...(that) Former UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim was not an intelligence resource for the United States, and the CIA could not conclude that the Soviet Union used or blackmailed Waldheim with information about his Nazi past. Testbed 08:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added more material on this issue as a separate section below. Testbed 13:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Roosevelt etc.

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

• User:217.237.151.34 contrib
• User:217.245.0.108 contrib
• User:217.245.3.19 contrib
• User:217.245.3.124 contrib
• User:217.245.18.118 contrib
• User:217.245.20.163 contrib

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)

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. --Quicksilver^{T @} 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)

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

File:NSDAPChart.jpg

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)

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)“. 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)

Why was his second UN term vetoed?

Anybody? --AW 13:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Waldheim was denied a third term; he served a full second term as Secretary-General. The government principally opposed to his selection was China. In 1971, they abstained from supporting him; in 1976, they vetoed his reappointment on the first ballot as a symbolic gesture supportive of choosing a national from a developing country; in 1981, China vetoed his reappointment through 16 ballots, eventually prompting Waldheim to withdraw from consideration. Tfleming 13:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Could you add that to the article? --AW 21:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please expand entire sec-gen section

Surely a two term tenure as Secretary General of the United Nations warrants more than four sentences. It currently hints at controversy, but describes none, and seems to give short shrift to his accomplishments and what role, if any, he played or what position, if any, he took in various conflicts at the time (Black September, Yom Kippur War, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, the collapse of the Paris Peace Accords, etc.). Also, why was his 1971 presidential campaign in Austria unsuccessful? Why was he able to turn around so quickly and become secgen? MrZaius^talk 14:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Will he be given a state funeral?

No comment other left than the header —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.55.244 (talk • contribs) I don't think so, as in Austria this is only intended for fed. presidents who have deceased while in service, as happened to Dr. Thomas Klestil (the predecessor of Dr. Heinz Fischer, Austria's current federal president) in 2004 during his last 2 weeks of his term. Waldheim had been enjoying his pension for around 15 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.208.3.57 (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Languages?

Waldheim claimed to have worked as an interpreter during the war. What languages did he know? Shouldn't they be included in the article? robert2957 16:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the Daily Telegraph obituary - which I have added to the external links - he had "fluent Italian, French and English" - want to work this in? Testbed 18:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Testbed

Political affiliation section

This sections needs to be edited as it does not read very well. I know nothing about the man and so was reading the article. The third sentence reads: "Shortly thereafter he became a registered member of the mounted corps of the SA. During the controversy he denied actually having signed any registration forms for SA membership."

What controversy? The preceding text to this makes no reference to any controversy and so this reads as though it is presumed you have read the rest of the article first and then read this bit last. WhizzBang 18:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Surrender and post-war investigation

The following text under the heading does not make sense;

"After the war, Waldheim was wanted for war crimes by the War Crimes Commission of the United Nations, the very organization he would later head".

If this were true, how did he manage to extracate himself from the post WWII investigations and later head the UN? Surely there was an official memory of the investigation? If there was an investigation of him in the immediate aftermath of WWII, this need to be stated and referenced, as do the conclusions of the investigation. Dglschapman 09:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that, while the Eli source gives a specific chapter, it is an apparent copyvio of http://www.slate.com/id/2086742/ - It wasn't in this article in 2004, but the Slate piece was published in '03. Restored and cleaned up the citation format & replaced with Slate link, not because the Eli source is invalid, but because it's an obvious unattributed quote of Slate. MrZaius^talk 21:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Expansion requests

Is there anything else that can be said in this section? How long had he been back in Austria? What was his specific role there, if known? What details if any are available about the investigation after the war? Anyone got a copy of Eli? MrZaius^talk 21:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In later sections, we have only one sentence covering the 1971 presidential election, with no substance or even the name of the person who bested Waldheim and almost no substantive coverage of his later presidency. What if anything did he accomplish in office? Surely there is something to say about his 6 years in office beyond what he didn't do - State visits. MrZaius^talk 10:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Article's come a long way since the passing of Mr. Waldheim. Do we still need the Template:NPOV, or has it been resolved? MrZaius^talk 22:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing no objections and no further comments implying continuing NPOV issues in the article, removing the tag. Feel free to restore & list any standing issues here. MrZaius^talk 20:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I originally tagged this article as NPOV and inserted the below statements on this talk page. None of these issues have been addressed yet, so I object to remove the tag Themanwithoutapast 21:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC):

POV and uncited statements

First to be completely clear, I do not support Waldheim's known actions during Austria's time in the Third Reich and his actions as a soldier. However, this article needs to be critized for various POV elements and various uncited statements. I will list them as follows and hope some can be cleared up and the article therefore improved:

• The article states shortly thereafter he became a registered member of the mounted corps of the SA. During the controversy he denied actually having signed any registration forms for SA membership. - the "Citation needed" tag has been there for a while now. I think it is true that he joined the SA "Reitercorps", but it is apparent that there needs to be a valid source for this statement.

This comment has not been addressed, only the second sentence removed.

• The article mentions twice that Waldheim directly reported to General Löhr or that he was "under the direction" of Löhr. This cannot be true, as he was not a member of Löhr's staff and was present at staff meetings only later on and only on a couple of occasions (please correct me if I am wrong). The relevant sections need to be revised and correctly sourced.

This comment has not been addressed.

• The section "military service" is contrary to the actual internationl historian committee on Waldheim's past and is unsourced as to say that there are eyewitness reports and intelligence reports.

While the section has been expanded, the controversial, unsourced statements are still there.

• The section about "Operation Kozara" talks about this operation and makes the indirect conclusion that Waldheim must be either involved or would have known about the operation without citing any source.

This has not been addressed.

• The subheadline "Waldheim and the Jewish War" is POV. Unfortunately the source stated is not available online and no further context is given.

This has not been addressed.

• No source that he was wanted for "war crimes" by the UN is given.

The source now cited is not available on the online and there is no such indication of fact anywhere - at least I have not heard of this.

• The whole article seems to focus on Waldheim's part in WW2 but the only sentence actually saying something about the very long report of the international committee of historians on Waldheim's past (probably the most notable source) is Their report cited evidence of Waldheim's knowledge about preparation for war crimes but denied any personal involvement in those crimes.

Not addressed.

• Contrary to just the one sentence about the report, there is a very long section about Wiesenthal's comments about Eli Rosenbaum's book on Waldheim - this seems odd and a defocused approach to the Waldheim affair.

Not addressed.

I will try and find sources and incorporate the international committee report a bit more. Please feel free to contribute as well and discuss the above topics.Themanwithoutapast 13:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerning SA membership: As I remember from newspaper reports in the late 1980s, Waldheim was a member of a riding club or society which (as a result of Gleichschaltung) become a suborganisation of the SA-Reitercorps, itself a suborganisation of the SA. Thus it may well be true that he "never signed an application form", and at the same time was a member of the Reitercorps. Bundeskanzler Fred Sinowatz (SPÖ, opposing Waldheim) said in connection with these claims: "I see now -- Waldheim was not in the SA after all, only his horse was." --Austrian 17:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Just two quick points - A book source is not invalid, and is in many cases preferred. Calls for book citations and peer-reviewed papers that may not be freely available on the internet are common in FA debates et al. Second point, the Economist quote provided valuable context by discussing the impact of his being put on the proto-No Fly List, so I popped it back in. MrZaius^talk 21:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong statement and nonesensical statement reinserted in the article

About the assertion that the UN wanted him for war crimes - even though someone cites a very controversial book this should not be in the article because it is incorrect - what is correct is that one defendent in a war crimes trial in Yugoslavia in 1948 alleged that Waldheim was involved in war crimes, the UN commission for war crimes received this allegation and put it on file (there have been 36,000 similar files when the commission was desolved in 1949) - however the UN never accussed or wanted Waldheim for war crimes. Therefore I removed the statement. I will now look for internet source (there are a lot of them) that back this statement and do not back the allegation that the UN wanted him for war crimes as indicated before in the article.

Regarding the second statement that was inserted again: "Moreover, he "sit for six years in the Hofburg without a state invitation, as the world turned its back on him. Ostracisation shocked both the country and the man." [2]" - what does that add to that section that is not already in it and moreover what does this sentence - despite being totally unencyclopedian actually mean - for instance what shall "Ostracisation shocked both..." mean??? I removed this statement again, because I do not see any reason for its inclusion. Themanwithoutapast 21:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of including the sourced quote as being unencyclopedic, and see no reason for its exclusion - it adds impact and suggests a noticeable emotional impact on Waldheim. Further, what you struck was either the fact that he never entered or was never invited to a western state, in the two versions of your edit. At the very least, the source should be retained to back up the absence of an invite or visit. As for your question about what "Ostracisation shocked both the country and the man" means, I would suggest you consult a dictionary. Its meaning is quite plain. On the other point, it would be great if you could find a stronger source and a better explanation - A quote in passing from Slate is hardly ideal, but it was better than nothing, especially given the triviality of the now-tiny section. Note the expansion request in the like-titled section above. As an aside, I agree with the rest of your deletions/cleanup. Please do not take the above as a complaint about the bulk of the POV removal. MrZaius^talk 21:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

1. The section mentions that he was not invited. The quote, besides not making any sense at all (you have still not explained what "ostracisation shocked both the country and the man" shall mean - I do not need a dictionary to know that this does not make any sense as a neutral statement - well because it is no neutral statement) is redundant to what the paragraph states that is he was not invited to nor visited any Western country rather than "sitting in the Hofburg for six years" which is totally unencyclopedic because it is not neutral language. 2. On the allegations that the UN wanted him for war crimes: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,966156,00.html?promoid=googlep here is a time article stating part of the facts, that he was on a list of 36,800 people the UN war crime commission (disolved months later on) had gathered data - and here: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.obituaries/browse_thread/thread/9530b609b12fd313/ba08f39ab8076d76 is an article by Jonathan Kandell in the New York Times explaining how Waldheim's name got on the list: In December 1945, Mr. Waldheim became a personal assistant to Karl Gruber, who was soon appointed Austria's foreign minister. Mr. Waldheim worked closely with Mr. Gruber on a bitter border dispute with Yugoslavia, by then a Communist country under the leadership of Marshal Josip Broz Tito, the partisans' wartime commander. Mr. Waldheim's prominent role in the dispute almost proved his undoing. In September 1947, the Yugoslav interior ministry discovered that the young diplomat had been an intelligence officer in a German army unit involved in atrocities against Yugoslav partisans. The next year, the Yugoslavs had Mr. Waldheim's name added to the United Nations War Crimes Commission list of suspected war criminals, a procedure that often led to extradition and trial. Themanwithoutapast 22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you don't understand about the quote, but, again, the source should not have been removed. The Reuters source only hints at him not making any visits to western countries. On the other point, again, a replacement for the blockquote/former-copyvio from slate would be great, but the section as it stands is incomplete and excessively short. Drop the source above into the section and flesh it out a bit, and my prior complaint will have been completely resolved. MrZaius^talk 10:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to mention that Waldheim's name was on the list of people who the UN War Crimes Commission gathered data about, the background to this should be given (as stated above) - please note that the sentence in that section before "the UN wanted him for war crimes" was just plain wrong. Regarding the Reuters source - that can of course go in again, only the quote - sorry to say - was POV and as I remain convinced does not make any sense. Themanwithoutapast 15:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

More Soviet blackmail

Following on from the short discussion (above) I have now tracked down a Washington Post article with a clear exposition of the 1980s stories of possible Soviet blackmail. As I quote fairly lengthy excerpts, in the interests of clarity I have put them here in this separate section. I hope to return to this material in editing when time allows. Testbed 13:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

From The Washington Post, October 30, 1986, headlined "'47 Soviet-Bloc Bid To Recruit Waldheim As Agent Described", by Dusko Doder, Washington Post Staff Writer:-

In the winter of 1947-48, the Yugoslav and Soviet intelligence services attempted to blackmail Kurt Waldheim into becoming a communist agent by threatening to charge him with war crimes, according to several former Yugoslav intelligence and government officials. These officials said in separate interviews in Belgrade last month that the Yugoslav secret police compiled a dossier of allegations against Waldheim, who served as an intelligence officer with German forces in the Balkans from 1942 to 1945. The senior Yugoslav intelligence agent in Vienna in 1947-48, Anton Kolendic, asserted that he had planned to use this material in a "joint" action with Soviet intelligence agents to recruit Waldheim. Kolendic said he had turned Waldheim's file over to Soviet intelligence agents and that he was "absolutely certain" that the Russians had made the approach.

Another former senior official of the Yugoslav intelligence service who asked not to be identified said that the Soviets in early 1948 had advised the Yugoslavs that Waldheim had been recruited and asked the Yugoslavs to stop further interference in the matter. But The Washington Post could not establish independently that Waldheim was ever recruited by the Soviets or the Yugoslavs.

One of the former officials who said he was familiar with the Waldheim file compiled by the Yugoslavs alleging his participation in war crimes described it as legally unpersuasive, and suggested that it could have been drawn up with the purpose of trying to blackmail Waldheim. This view is supported by an examination of the document, which was obtained by The Post.

Asked to comment on the allegation that he was recruited as a Soviet or Yugoslav agent, Waldheim, now president of Austria, asserted through his spokesman, Gerold Christian, that "no such attempt perceivable to Mr. Waldheim was made." "Mr. Waldheim was never approached by any country in a manner implied by the question," Christian said in a telephone conversation...

...Former Yugoslav intelligence officers, now all comfortably retired, appeared to recall vividly details of an old operation that involved plans to blackmail Waldheim, who served after World War II as personal secretary to Austrian Foreign Minister Karl Gruber. An anti-Nazi, Gruber is unlikely to have hired an accused Nazi war criminal as an assistant. The former officials who answered questions about Waldheim appeared to feel that the passage of time and their current obscurity permitted them to discuss the subject, which stirred up old anti-Nazi emotions...

...Kolendic, who was the head of Yugoslav intelligence in Vienna after the war, said he was directly involved in the Yugoslav attempt to compromise Waldheim. At the time, Kolendic said in an interview, he was formally listed as deputy chief of the Yugoslav military mission in Austria. In the second half of December 1947, he said, "I received a list of 24 names of German war criminals along with the copies of files on them that were being sent to the U.N. Commission on War Crimes in London [which was assembling a central registry of accused war criminals]. Waldheim's name was fourth on the list and was underlined. He was described as an official of the Austrian Foreign Ministry. "I looked carefully through his file because it was unusually detailed. We have had such lists and files coming all the time, but in the vast majority of cases, documentation was short and weak. We did not have such a well-documented file before; at least I don't remember seeing one."

Along with the files, Kolendic said he and his deputy, Vasilije Kovacevic, received instructions to "recruit" Waldheim. Kolendic said he and Kovacevic decided to do his "jointly" with the Russians. He added that he had cooperated with Soviet intelligence operatives and in particular with a Col. Gonda. "I gave the Waldheim file to Gonda," he said. When challenged about his assertion that he was "absolutely certain" that the Russians had approached Waldheim, Kolendic said: "When you are in the intelligence business, you have a way of knowing such things. I dealt with Gonda regularly and we became quite friendly."...

...According to another former intelligence operative who held the rank of colonel in the Yugoslav secret police at the time, the Soviets in early 1948 told a Yugoslav intelligence liaison officer named Col. Boro Leontic that "Waldheim was recruited and that the Yugoslavs should stop their interference." Leontic could not be located in Yugoslavia.

An official indictment accusing Waldheim of war crimes was a potent weapon for any intelligence officer in postwar, anti-Nazi Vienna, Kolendic said. When Waldheim was confronted with it, he "must have been terrified," Kolendic said. He described the atmosphere in Vienna, which in 1947 and 1948 was inside the Soviet occupation zone, although the city itself was under four-power occupation. "It was the time of 'The Third Man.' The Orson Welles movie was set precisely at that time. Assassinations and kidnapings were common occurrences in Vienna." In 1947, Kolendic said, Soviet intelligence suddenly began to recruit people in large numbers. "At that point they realized the weakness of the Austrian communists. Their political positions were eroding rapidly although they were still in the government. But the Russians figured that they could not count on this situation to continue for a long time and therefore began approaching people from the bourgeois parties. They could recruit people by, say, facilitating the return of your son from a Soviet POW camp; or by giving food or other favors; or by blackmail.

"They were particularly angry with [Austrian Foreign Minister] Gruber, whom they considered to be a British agent -- not merely a British sympathizer but an agent. I heard Gonda and other Soviet officers, including generals, talk about an incident that could be staged to eliminate Gruber. Hence their interest in Waldheim, who was Gruber's secretary, working in Gruber's office. Don't forget, these were Stalin's intelligence agents. I am absolutely certain that Waldheim was recruited at that time."

Another former official who served as a personal aide to the late Yugoslav president Josip Broz Tito beginning in the 1960s indicated that Waldheim was turned over to Soviet intelligence. "We had to give him to the Russians," this former official said. "We were an appendage of the Soviet Union at the time [in 1947-48] although we were never a voluntary satellite." Another former intelligence agent, who served as a personal aide to Slobodan Penezic, deputy to Yugoslav secret police chief Alexander Rankovic, said the indictment was prepared after Yugoslav intelligence discovered that Waldheim was working as Gruber's secretary and "Rankovic decided that we should try to recruit him."

"That was not difficult in those days," he continued. "You show your victim the document [such as the formal charge of war crimes] but then you tell him everything would be fine, you'd protect him provided he would do something for you in return. And that was 1947. You have to feel the atmosphere of that year. War crime trials were still going on, people were afraid . . . . "

This source, however, contradicted Kolendic's assertion that the Yugoslav police had never attempted to recruit Waldheim. He said he had seen memoranda of conversations that Kolendic sent to Belgrade about his talks with Waldheim and with Gonda, the Soviet agent. Kolendic declined to meet a reporter a second time to discuss this source's recollection.

Waldheim was recommended to Gruber as a possible member of the new Austrian Foreign Ministry staff by a man with impeccable anti-Nazi credentials, Fritz Molden, publisher of the Viennese daily Die Presse. Molden had been the liaison between the Austrian underground and the Allies, and he was the son-in-law of the American master spy Allen Dulles. Had Waldheim disclosed his three years of wartime service in the Balkans as an intelligence officer in the Wehrmacht High Command for Southeast, he most likely would not have been taken on by Gruber, a leader of the Austrian resistance...

...the file, number F 25572, includes a letter written Dec. 18, 1947, by Dusan Nedeljkovic, president of the Yugoslav war crimes commission, to the Yugoslav Embassy in London. It accompanied lists of war criminals to be registered with the U.N. Commission on War Crimes, which was located in London. Nedeljkovic wrote: "You should first of all make efforts to register Waldheim, reason being that the evidence is good and the indictment is fully sufficient, but also because from another point of view it is especially useful politically."...

...Two men in Tito's immediate entourage said in separate interviews that Tito had known about the compromising aspects of Waldheim's past and that he had regarded him as a "Soviet man" who also had likely ties to the United States. But, one said, Tito viewed him as "a convenient figure for the U.N. job." Waldheim, one source quoted Tito as saying, was a "pliable" man. Mirko Milutinovic, Tito's long-time chief of staff, said in an interview that "I knew that Waldheim had been compromised."...

Testbed 13:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I found following related links quite easily : [[3]] [[4]]. It seems unlikey that this will be ever confirmed so I would not bother adding the details to the article but maybe link the source. Richiez (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Translation of "Mitläufer"

I changed the translation of "Mitläufer" in the quote from Waldheim's "last words" from "fellow traveller" to "follower", because a) "Mitläufer" has quite different connotations than "fellow traveler" and b) "Mitläufer" was one of the five official categories during denazification and the English name of that category was "follower". Joriki 11:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good try - and thanks for picking up on the problem (I took the translation from someone else). I don't think "follower" quite does it either, but I agree it's better than what was there before. Let's hope someone else comes up with something better still! Testbed 14:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Political party

Which political party did the subject belong to when he campaigned for president? I don't see that important info in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Österreichische Volkspartei (Austrian People’s Party) --Vheissu (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Austria refers to this party as "the conservative People's Party". The English Wikipedia page is Austrian People's Party. Testbed (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The correct translation of the official name is "Austrian People's Party" (=Österreichische Volkspartei), whereas "people's party" (=Volkspartei) is the commonly used short version, and conservative is just the adjective refering to their political ideology, and not part of their official name. --Vheissu (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be made clear that Waldheim was never a member of that party nor of any other political party. --Snevern (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A more complex view is needed

Kurt Waldheim was regarded as the first presidential candidate of the OEVP with a good chance of winning the popular vote, because his opponents, the then governing Austrian Socialist Party (SPOE) at that time had big problems. These problems centered around the "Verstaatlichte Industrie" (Nationalized Industry). Not all people inside OEVP liked Mr. Waldheim, but his nominaton was a clever move because of his previous high function at the UN. Because of this position Waldheim had been paid official respect by the SPOE too. Therefore the OEVP ran its first pro-Waldheim ads with the slogan: "Der Mann, dem die Welt vertraut" (The man whom the world trusts).

In this situation someone inside the SPOE must have had the idea to eliminate the all too successful looking candidate by spreading the news about his wartime activities. Some rumours had circulated before, but nothing much had come of it. James Dorsey, a UPI-correspondent, later testified in court that Hans Pusch, a leading aide to then ruling chancellor Fred Sinowatz (SPOE) had approached him with the question whether Dorsey would be willing to publish material about Waldheim*s wartime past. (Pusch at that time was thought to have a very strong influence on the likeable and thoughtful but rather weak Fred Sinowatz). Dorsey agreed, but only if he was allowed to quote the source of the material. Under these circumstances, howver, Pusch was not interested.

Austria is a small country and inside its political circles there was well before the presidential election a lot of gossip that´a "dirty" anti-Waldheim campaign would soon be unleashed by some people inside SPOE. This was seen as an attempt to disqalify a dangerous political opponent in a similar way candidates in the US are sometimes targeted with campaigns regarding their private (sex) lives. The Austrian president, by the way, plays a rather ceremonial role according to the constitution, he holds very little real power (except with regard to whom he appoints to the government). But SPOE did not want a representative of OEVP to take this office - even though many inside the party doubted the usefulness of a smear campaign.

The events that followed seemed to bear out the suspicion that Waldheim was to be downed by unfair means, and thus a well orchestrated counter-campaign of moral outrage and "We will not take orders from abaroad" was set up by OEVP. All these aspects had little to do with Mr. Waldheim's war time record and his personality, but unfortuntely they proved decisive. Had Mr Waldheim been proven to be a war criminal he would of course have had to withdraw his candidacy, but the materials published were not substantial enough.

Thus Mr. Waldheim was elected in the summer of 1986 and chancellor Sinowatz, a tragic figure, had to step down. (He has passed away recently).

A little personal note to end these observations: I am and was by no means a fan of Mr. Waldheim, in fact I was a member in the support committee for his opponent, Mr. Steyrer, a very likeable physician and minister in the Sinowatz cabinet. I just think that it is time to see the Waldheim affair in a more complex and NPOV way.

Robert Schediwy 86.33.220.91 (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I second the position that a more complex view is needed (and indeed have tried to help in the past with some new material). Fritz Molden (no current Wikipedia article in English but those who read German can go here [5]) recently published a memoir in which he says Tito admitted to him that papers were forged to discredit Waldheim *back in the late 1940s* (for strictly local reasons). So if that's true - and given Molden's reputation it might be - it may be the case that some Austrian (and then US) researchers were innocently led astray by old but false documents. Testbed (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Waldheim affair was discussed outside Austria predominantly in terms of Waldheim's own behavior. In Austria the media focus was on the campaign against the leading candidate and on its origins (most observers suspected an aide to the then ruling chancellor Sinowatz). Obviously Waldheim's behavior was not very impressive, but neither was the campaign against him that amounted to massive foreign interference in an electoral process. See the Article in DER SPIEGEL of March 10, 1986 quoted in German Wikipedia (Waldheim-Affäre, talk page). Robert Schediwy 86.33.220.91 (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Under the heading "The International Committee of Historians and allegations of Nazi war crimes", the text says (second paragraph):

In an account of the controversy, Simon Wiesenthal stated that Waldheim was stationed 5 miles (8.0 km) from Salonika while, over the course of several weeks, the Jewish community which formed one third of the population there, was sent to Auschwitz. Waldheim denied any knowledge of this:

I could only reply what the committee of historians likewise made clear in its report: "I cannot believe you."[31]

It is not clear, as written, whether the quoted text is Wiesenthal stating that he does not believe that Waldheim had no knowledge of what happened, or Waldheim stating that he did not believe that the Jewish community of Salonika was sent to Auschwitz over the course of several weeks. I presume it is the former: is that correct? Can it be clarified? Ondewelle (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's clearer now I think. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Soviet blackmail - again

This discussion was begun as long ago as 2004 (see here) so following the suggestion in the most recent Talk posting (2010, by User:Richiez, here), as no one else has picked this up, I will now try to include the Washington Post link in the article. Testbed (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Initial denials of having been in Greece

My possibly faulty memory tells me that when Waldheim's war service in Greece was first raised, he denied it, saying he couldn't have been guilty of any Greek atrocities because he was never in Greece at all during the war. At all. Later, he admitted he was in Greece, but took no part in any atrocities. I'm not accusing him of any atrocities, but the Austrian electors didn't seem to mind having a president who told a bare-faced lie to avoid inconvenient scrutiny. Is this the case, and why doesn't the article say anything about it? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

How does one respond to what has already been written?

Based on the previous texts we are to assume that ANYONE who has not AGREED to the NAZI regime, but continued PARTICIPATING in it is to be applauded?

Incredible. Not a single criticism of the fact that a NAZI was a United Nations representative?

How can Wikipedia be considered a NON-biased source of information when it does not bring the basic inconsistencies to light?

I am outraged. And you ASK for a donation? You should be ashamed of yourself!!!!

This is a person whose family was directly hurt by the NAZIs and continues being hurt.

Anyone who does NOT deal with the truth or the reality of NAZIs is by default a NAZI supporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.145.102 (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You ought to offer some evidence that Waldheim was a Nazi, as you claim. Not even Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal does. There is no evidence of a Nazi party membership, and if he had been a member, he would have risen to a higher rank than to that of a lieutenant. And remember: a lieutenant usually commands a platoon, i.e. a unit of 15 or 30 soldiers.Ontologix (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Wehrmacht ranks

Hi, I've been searching in Wikipedia for a definition of Waldheim's ranks, to no avail; the closer found was NATO ones. Can anyone please point to a verifiable source to use? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Missing obituary from The Independent

An important obituary by historian David Childs from the British broadsheet newspaper The Independent is for some reason no longer available online, either on The Independent's own website or elsewhere (and as a result at least one link in this article is broken). Here is the text:-

The Independent (London) June 15, 2007 Friday

KURT WALDHEIM; Former UN Secretary-General elected President of Austria despite criticism of his wartime activities

David Childs

Very few Austrian politicians since 1945 have been known outside their own country, even in neighbouring Germany and Switzerland. Kurt Waldheim, Austrian President from 1986 to 1992, following two terms as Secretary-General of the United Nations, was very much an exception. The president of Austria is a largely symbolic figure - the Chancellor as head of government is the key politician. Yet the president is directly elected, after a campaign which turns the spotlight strongly on the contenders. It was during this process that Waldheim's Second World War service came under strong attack from the World Jewish Congress.

Waldheim was never able to lay to rest the charge that he was in some way implicated in war crimes in Yugoslavia and Greece. He served as a lieutenant in the German army from 1941 to 1945. Part of his service was as assistant adjutant on the staff of General Alexander Löhr, an Austrian who was executed in 1946 for war crimes in Yugoslavia. A decisive witness in Waldheim's favour was Simon Wiesenthal, the Jewish Nazi hunter. In his memoirs, Recht, nicht Rache (1988, translated as Justice, not Vengeance), he devoted a whole chapter to the Waldheim affair. He stated that Waldheim was neither a Nazi nor a war criminal. Wiesenthal believed that Waldheim had been foolish to have written nothing in his own memoirs about his wartime experience. He also believed that Waldheim must have known more than he admitted about war crimes in the sector where he was stationed. He thought Waldheim should, in the circumstances, have resigned. Waldheim did not.

Wiesenthal's explanation for the attacks on Waldheim was that they were largely due to rivalries between Jewish organisations. Another explanation was that during the period that Waldheim was Secretary-General (1972-81), the United Nations condemned Zionism as racism.

The Austrian government, led by the Socialist Party, established an independent commission to investigate Waldheim's wartime activities. It comprised an international group of distinguished historians from Belgium, Britain, Israel, Switzerland, the United States and West Germany. They found no evidence to substantiate the claims against Waldheim but felt he must have known about atrocities committed and made no protest. Among those who supported Waldheim was the outgoing Socialist president, Rudolf Kirchschläger.

Waldheim's election as president in 1986 with 53.9 per cent of the second, run-off ballot, was regarded as a sign that Austria had not learned from the Nazi experience. In fact, the most popular post-war Austrian politician was Bruno Kreisky, the Chancellor for many years and a Socialist of Jewish background. Some voted for Waldheim because he was the opposition candidate at a time when the Socialist government - after 16 years in office - was running into difficulties; others were impressed by his UN stature. Some of his own generation felt that he was, like them, simply a man who had been conscripted into the Nazi German army and forced to serve. His utterances, " Ich kann mich nicht erinnern" ("I cannot remember") and " Ich habe nur meine Pflicht getan" ("I only did my duty") appealed to them. The attack on him they saw as an attack on them. They did not want outsiders telling them whom they could or could not vote for. Waldheim was the first non-Socialist President of Austria since before the Second World War. Waldheim was ostracised by most countries during his presidency, thus reducing the effectiveness of his contribution. The United States humiliated him, and many Austrians thought their country, by placing him on the Justice Department's "Watch List". This meant he would not be admitted to the US as a private citizen. The ban remained in force until his death.

During the first Gulf war Waldheim was one of a number of notables, among them Edward Heath, who went to Baghdad to seek ways out of the conflict. Waldheim's first visit as President of Austria was to the Vatican; his last was to Cyprus in November 1991, by which time he had already announced his intention not to seek re-election for a second term.

Born in 1918 into a Catholic family in St Andrä-Wördern, Lower Austria, Waldheim grew up in an Austria which was but a shadow of its previous imperial self, a land torn by political and economic instability. His father was a school inspector who lost his job, and was arrested, after the Nazis took over Austria in 1938. Waldheim studied at the consular academy in Vienna, training for a career in diplomacy. But the incorporation of Austria into Germany and the outbreak of war in 1939 put paid to such expectations.

As a student he was a member of the Nazi Student League, which could be seen as "normal" at the time. Waldheim served as an ordinary Wehrmacht officer and, after being wounded on the Eastern Front in 1941, was sent as an interpreter to Greece. He acted on liaison duties with Germany's Italian allies. He did not exercise command during this time but, given the material he handled, would have known of Nazi atrocities, including the deportation of the Jews and the likely execution, on Hitler's orders, of Allied commandos in whose interrogation he took part. He found time to write his doctorate of law dissertation during this period, successfully completing it in 1944 at the University of Vienna. This reveals perhaps a certain callousness mixed with extreme ambition.

When the war ended, Waldheim entered the new Austrian diplomatic service and from 1948 to 1951 served as First Secretary of the Legation in Paris. He was head of the personnel department of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Vienna from 1951 to 1955. In 1955 he was appointed Permanent Observer for Austria to the United Nations and later that year became head of the Austrian Mission when Austria was admitted to the UN. From 1956 to 1960, Waldheim represented Austria in Canada, latterly as ambassador.

From 1960 to 1962, he headed the Political Department (West) in the Austrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, becoming Director-General for Political Affairs until 1964. For the next four years, he was Austria's Permanent Representative to the United Nations. In 1968 he was elected president of the first UN Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

Waldheim served as non-party Foreign Minister in Austria's conservative government, 1968-70. After leaving office, he was unanimously elected Chairman of the Safeguards Committee of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and in October 1970 he again became the Austrian Permanent Representative to the United Nations, a post he held until 1971.

Waldheim's first bid to be Austrian President was in 1971 when he failed as the People's Party (conservative) candidate. The Socialists were in the ascendancy. Between 1972 and 1981 he served his two terms as Secretary-General of the United Nations. It was the time of the Yom Kippur War, of terrorist attacks and hijack-ings. But it was also the era of Brezhnev in Moscow and Nixon and Carter in Washington. Carter and Brezhnev signed the SALT II treaty, after arms-reduction talks, in Vienna in June 1979. They were working for détente, something of great importance to Austria, given its geographical position and neutral status.

In February 1973, Waldheim took part in the Paris International Conference on Vietnam. He was also involved with the complicated situation in Cyprus after the Turkish invasion in July 1974. Austria played a considerable role providing UN peacekeeping forces in various parts of the world including Cyprus, where it suffered its first fatalities, and the Golan Heights. Waldheim was also embroiled in the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979. It was not his fault that his efforts at mediating did not produce greater results. The UN, under Waldheim, also played a successful role in making arrangements for the transitions in Rhodesia and Namibia. During his time at the UN there were rumours that he was being blackmailed by the Soviet KGB because of his wartime service. Declassified CIA documents produced no evidence of this. He wanted to serve a third term at the UN, but China vetoed this ambition.

On leaving the UN Waldheim was appointed a visiting professor at Georgetown University in Washington. He wrote several books, including Im Glaspalast der Weltpolitik (1985, translated as In the Eye of the Storm) about his UN experiences. Waldheim's detractors portrayed him as a colourless bureaucrat always anxious to please. Clearly he was a very ambitious and determined man; his decision to stand again for the presidency after his earlier defeat showed that. With two terms at the UN, why did he need to be President of Austria? And given his isolation once he had become President, why did he not resign as so many, not unsympathetic to him, urged him to do on patriotic grounds?

Kurt Waldheim, politician: born St Andrä-Wördern, Austria 21 December 1918; First Secretary, Austrian embassy, Paris 1948-51; Counsellor and Head of Personnel Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Austria 1951-55, Director-General for Political Affairs 1960-64; Permanent Austrian Observer to the United Nations 1955-56; Minister Plenipotentiary to Canada 1956-58; ambassador to Canada 1958-60; Permanent Representative of Austria to the UN 1964-68, 1970-71; Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs 1968-70; UN Secretary-General 1972-81; Guest Professor of Diplomacy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 1982-84; Chairman, InterAction Council for International Co-operation 1983-85; President of the Republic of Austria 1986-92; married 1944 Elisabeth Ritschel (one son, two daughters); died Vienna 14 June 2007. Testbed (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Very useful, thanks. Do you have printed copy of thr original publication that could be archived as supporting source? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)