Talk:Kurt Waldheim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kurt Waldheim article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject International relations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states.
If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
United Nations This article is part of the United Nations WikiProject.
UN Portal

Contents

[edit] Facts in entry correct?

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

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

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.

[edit] Allegations or Revelations?=

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

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

[edit] Did he break the Geneva Convention?

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

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

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

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


Aleph4 14:24, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)


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


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


[edit] Member of the SS?

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

The Membership in the SA is too highly questinable. When Hitler occopied Austria his centralised Diktatorship overtook all organisations simelar like the communists, witch is called in German "Gleichschaltung". So a lot of Organisation where either closed dawn ore became part of NS Organisations mainly with the SA in witch you could find everything from a car drivers association to sportclubs. Surly it is not overseeable if or how long by his own will he was part of this organisation, because he was belonging before to one of the transfered Austrian sports organisations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

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 • contribs)

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

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

[edit] Soviet blackmail

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

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

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

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

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)

[edit] Archive

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

[edit] Roosevelt etc.

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

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

The text starts with

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

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

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

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

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

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


[edit] Miscellaneous

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

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

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

[edit] List of former Nazis influential after 1945

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] characterizations of the ÖCV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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? MrZaiustalk 14:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 • contribs)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. MrZaiustalk 21:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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? MrZaiustalk 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. MrZaiustalk 10:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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? MrZaiustalk 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. MrZaiustalk 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. MrZaiustalk 21:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. MrZaiustalk 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. MrZaiustalk 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)