Records: Schwarzenegger's father was member of Nazi storm troops

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030824/APN/308240678

By SUSANNA LOOF
Associated Press Writer

It's just a tiny typewritten line tucked away in an immense archive, but it sheds further light on the Nazi past of Arnold Schwarzenegger's father.

The brief entry in one of millions of documents stored at the Austrian State Archives shows that Gustav Schwarzenegger, the late father of the film star now running for governor of California, was a volunteer member of the Sturmabteilung, or SA - the notorious Nazi storm troopers also known as brownshirts.

... The Wiesenthal Center didn't find the storm trooper reference in its 1990 investigation because that record was sealed until last year, 30 years after Gustav Schwarzenegger's death in 1972.

The new information was "negative," though SA membership is not considered a crime in itself, as membership in the Gestapo or the paramilitary SS would be, Hier said.

more

might -- just might -- have had some effect on the boy Arnold, and that perhaps some, just some, of his philosophy, perspectives, and points of view might be somehow related to his father's Nazi period?

Or do a father's beliefs not influence his young?

Just wondering.

Move to other countries and sometimes take up beliefs contrary to what mom or dad wanted.

Personally, I like some of his movies, but I would never vote for Ahnold. That said, this is slander worthy of the worst sort of political mudslinging.

Tarring the son with his father's crimes is loathesome.

It's also foolish. A son may well react by turning 180 degrees from his father's beliefs.




http://www.dvorkin.com

personal philosophy and political perspective in detail.

Until you are fully informed about the candidate you would do well to refrain from accusing those who ask pertinent questions.

You slander him by linking him to his father's Nazi past. I don't give a tinker's damn about Ahnold's candidacy. But I am offended when we stoop as low (or lower in this case) than the right. If that's how you want to play politics, then you and I don't stand for the same things.

candidates or issues. If you do not understand the legitimate concern of many Californians -- who may, through the failure to ask questions about a candidate's personal philosophy and political perspective, wake up to a terrible surprise -- especially after all that has happened to this country in the last few years, then I suggest you bone up.

In the meantime, I hope you learn to curb your venom one day.

Cheers.

but wouldn't vote for Ahnold no matter what.

I am very interested in the recall itself however. But I hate to see us stoop to a level below disgusting by bringing up what his father did.

then what's the difference. Fight Rove with rovelike jabs.

at his wedding in Los Angeles in the mid 1980's.

It isn't slander when the son toasts a Nazi as well to the gasps of members of the Jewish community present at his wedding..that of course precipitated his large contributions to the Weisenthanl Center.

And the entire Kennedy clan was there toasting Waldheim right along side with Arnold and his new wife.

And while you are at it, why don't you go also after all the Kennedys, after all, the patriarch of the family was a well known Hitler appeaser that FDR had to remove as Ambassador to England.

After that, you can go after all the German scientists we used in the space program, dead or alive, because of their role in the development of the V-1 and V-2 rockets that were used to bomb civilian areas in England.

eom

<>

FYI, that IS Arnold's face on his Dad's papers. You can see the original at the topic link.

Cheers.

and this Nazi bullshit is wearing as thin as the one from those morons that question Teresa Heinz's first marriage.

I don't know of many Germans that can claim to have a parentage free of any Nazi ties, unless they were Communist!

If this is all some Democrats have to say to defend the pathetic and doomed Gray Davis, I pity you.

Thank God we have Cruz Bustamante as a real choice for Governor, and unlike Davis, a real leader and someone we can all be proud of!

You find it terribly interesting to fret over Cruz's associations with MEChA and La Raza and no doubt his use of Spanish in public.

Well, fret away.

One day you may learn something about these organizations apart from what is published in reactionary periodicals and websites.

For example, you might try http://www.csus.edu/org/mecha/about_m_e_ch_a_.htm

You may find after you do some research that you don't much like MEChA and its philosophy and point of view, and if that were so, you would be right (I think) to question Cruz's association with the organization and especially question what influence this association has had on him and his work in public service.

Just as those of us who are concerned about A. Schwarzenegger's personal philosophy and political perspective want some answers to our questions.

To wonder about Ahnold's philosophy is legit. To comment on what his dad did is not. And what Bustamante IS doing and HIS connections is also legit.

candidate and/or his background including his childhood and family life if it may have a bearing on his fitness for high office.

Unfortunately, most of the California media has decided that nothing about A. Schwarzenegger's life prior to his declaration of candidacy is "newsworthy." This is because they believe that the slate was wiped clean when he changed from being a movie star to a candidate.

On the other hand, just about any accusation anyone has ever made about Cruz is considered "fresh" and is widely publicized.

The media double standard is alive and well. Just about anything is OK if you are a Republican. And as we saw with the implementation of this double standard during Election 2000, a truly vile individual wound up in the White House, in part because important questions were not asked or answered about Bush and a fine public servant named Al Gore was ritualistically trashed.

Something similar may be about to happen again.

If you don't want to mention A. Schwarzenegger's Nazi father, don't.

You're entitled to your personal desires. But others -- including me -- will bring it up because Californians had better find out. If Californians elect A. Swarzenegger knowing the facts, then I will disagree with the plurality but will allow as how they made an informed selection. If they elect him without knowing the facts, then I will assume they really don't care -- and democracy is essentially irrelevant.

Ideally we will know the facts in full, and we won't elect him.

And what lies he told them to get them in the back of the car with him?

That's as relevant to this discussion as Arnold's father!

"It is perfectly legitimate to bring up anything about a candidate and/or his background including his childhood and family life if it may have a bearing on his fitness for high office."

If you believe that Davis's high school dating habits may have bearing on his fitness for high office, then by all means bring it up and discuss it.

If you don't, then don't.

If it has anything at all to do with Davis's decades of public service and his fitness to continue as governor, then it will be worth discussing. If not, not.

So far, those of you who claim that A. Schwarzenegger's Nazi father and the boy's upbringing in an (ex)-Nazi's household is irrelevant have completely failed to make your case.

You've basically just said you don't want to discuss it and dumped on those who argue that it is a worthwhile issue to investigate and learn more about.

Hiding your head in the sand about something that could be critically important -- and something you know nothing about because you refuse to address the issue -- simply because you don't want to talk about it is disrespectful to the learning process essential to a democracy.

But I'll say again: If you don't want to talk about it, stop talking about it. Simple.

Of course carry on with your fretting over Bustamante's associations with MEChA and La Raza since you DO want to talk about that, but for criminy sakes LEARN something about those organiztions besides what you read in right wing publications and websites.

Oh by the way, do you think that the fact that Cruz's father was a California farmworker had anything to do with HIS interest in public service, elective office and so on? And would you imagine that might have something to do with his interest in being governor now? Do you think it might have some effect on his policy positions? Do you think his Catholicism might have some influence on his personal philosophy?

Or is the only thing worth considering about him his MEChA and La Raza associations and the hay the right wing reactionaries are trying to make of it?

Your decision.

as you indulge in pursuing this nonsense about Arnold's father.

I suppose that critical thinking takes a back seat to shallow emotionalism in your book!

are fascinating for their constant misrepresentations of facts, their remarkable tendency to project your own emotions on to others, and your insistence on misstating and misinterpreting my posts among others.

It's obvious you have no idea what I've written about S. Schwarzenegger's father, nor do you have any knowledge of what I have written are the important issues regarding Schwarzenegger's upbringing and its influence on his present day personal philosophy and political point of view.

I assume your posts are meant in jest.

Otherwise they would be ridiculous.

when these events happen.

We aren't responsible for our parents' behaviour.

that his reason for not "letting" Maria wear pants was because "his father never let his mother wear pants and therefore he will not be seen in public with either his mother or Maria if they are wearing trousers." It seems like a small thing, but if he adopted one such conservative viewpoint from his father, chances are his father influenced him in other ways as well.

Personally, I think the taint is a little too fresh to overlook entirely.

THE APPLE DOESN'T FALL FAR FROM THE TREE!!

And what if I were to tell you I was the daughter of a Nazi? Would you hold that against me?

nuff said!

and what she said was true? For God's sakes, this is plain ridiculous. Basically all present day Germans should be looked with suspicion because of their past, and the same goes with the Japanese. Hell, all BRits should be looked with suspicion because of the fact that their fathers and mothers served in occupied colonies. Therefore, all Britons should be looked at with suspicion and their judgement questioned. Same should go with all Europeans, most of whom let go of their colonies only in the past 50 years. Now, I'm not comparing all nations with the Nazis and there is no comparison with the horrors inflicted by them, but Arnold should not be blamed for the sins of his father.

Now, I think if you were to raise questions about his judgement about inviting the formed UN general, Kurt Wilheilm or whatever his name was, to his wedding then that's fair game. Arnold should clearly have exercised better judgment, and people would know what indication that is of his judgment.

Arnold should be attacked for what he is -- an inexperienced, bumbling fool, riding on fame from silly movies, taking advantage of a republican power grab, for an office they could not win legimately.

You can attack Arnold for his dad being a Nazi, and make a big deal of this with the media...But now, the real question is, how does all this play in terms of pure electoral politics? Hard to say, but I doubt, even if the media did pick this up, that people would look very deeply into. Most people understand that Austria and Germany were completely dominated by the Nazi party and that by most accounts, Arnold is not a Nazi, an antisemite, or racist. Such tacticts could possibly even backfire, since the people of the state, may be tired of such dirty politics of personal destruction.

There are plenty of REAL issues to attack Arnold on. We have to focus on those.

sorry, but if she was running for office (like arnold is), it WOULD make a difference to me! as has been shown by *ush 2, ones father's background is very important! hello! i stand by my words!

Come on he was brought up by Nazi's and you don't think that a little hasn't rubbed off of Arnuld.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

n/t

by using concentration camp prisoner labor. bush's
wife Laura ran a stop sign and killed someone without
even getting a ticket. Seems if you are republican
scandals don't stick. If you are democratic you better
not jaywalk or it will be continuous headlines.

in case you haven't seen it

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html

Smooth transition, imo.

Not that Arnold was a Nazi. Hmm...I wonder if he had any political ties in Austria?

FROM HELL! :evilfrown: :evilfrown:

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

}( }( }( }(

So what? What your father does may or may not influence you, but last time I checked Ahnold's dad wasn't running for office.

I won't hold anyone to that standard. There's enough reasons not to vote for Ah-nold without dealing with his father.

There are MF evil families out there, no doubt about it. But I don't think that one's parent's activities should automatically cast a shadow on their child's life unless they've willingly supported their familiy's evil ends (See: BFEE).

No, it shouldn't "automatically" tarnish him.

HOWEVER, please remember several things.

1. Fascists and fascism are hallmarked by (among other things) a very strong anti-communist philosophy, and in the U.S., that can too often be an anti-socialism battle on their part as well.

2. Chris Matthews has reported at least twice (all aglow when he did so, of course) that when Arnold was still in Austria and couldn't even speak English at the time, he heard Hubert Humphrey and said to himself, that sounds like the socialists here in Austria. Therefore, I'm a Republican.

3. We imported a LOT of Nazis after the war and put them in the CIA, and a number of different RNC-related organizations. You may remember that one of them had to resign from a too-visible position in GHWBush's election campaign when it was revealed he'd been a Nazi. I don't think the Bushes ever quite gave up their own ties with, or at least sympathies toward fascism, and GWBush surely ought to seem perfect proof of that.

4. This whole recall is, by definition, anti-democratic (no matter how "legal" it may or may not be). That too IS fascism: anti-democratic through and through. The recall is but ONE of the anti-democratic efforts going on in this country intended to consolidate Republican power. Another is the Texas redistricting, with another redistricting effort announced for Georgia the other day, and others being discussed in other states, I'm sure. Possibly more recalls to be conducted. And we all know what Bush has done to consolidate power, and the putsch in the Pentagon, and so on.

6. Sooooo, Arnold may not be a Nazi or other kind of fascist, but he IS absolutely, positively participating in an end run around democracy, a fascist attempt to take over this state government for American fascists, aka: Republicans. One doesn't have to call oneself a fascist to BE one.

I would NOT be so quick to dismiss the fact that his father was a Nazi. You don't know (and neither do I) what attitudes and philosophies he learned by osmosis and thinks of now merely as "Republicanism." There's really so little difference between them these days ....

Eloriel

Sorry, I so wildly disagree with you as to be amazing. I would vote no in a heartbeat in Cali, but the recall is legal and, therefore, democratic and not fascist. Like it or not, it IS the will of enough people to accomplish the recall petition. Who wins will also be the will of the people.

You have a problem with definition of terms.

Two words for you: Patriot Act.

Nor is removing someone from office for no other reason than that they aren't popular. Malfeasance or at the very least absolute and total incompetence ought to be the minimum required. It's anti-democratic. Elections were just held not even a year ago. An end run around democratically held elections is, well, undemocratic, no matter what the "legal" mechanism used to do it.

Nor is the "will of the people" an arbiter of what is and is not democratic or pro-democracy, especially when said people are so ill-informed. The "will of the people" supported an illegal war in Iraq.

You're entitled to your opinion, but in MY opinion it runs toward the fascist.

Eloriel

The people or enough of them ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION to have another election. Then THE PEOPLE get to vote again.

Sorry if you think that is undemocratic. Yes, it screws us potentially, but it's still legit. The Patriotic Act is being done not by citizens on their own, but by government. The two aren't even vaguely alike except that you dislike them both.

"Legit" doesn't signify democratic, or undemocratic either.

I take it from this post you're relying on the technicality of whether or not something is "legit" -- enshrined in law. Apparently in your mind that means it must therefore be democratic. IMO, that's a very poor definition of democratic or pro-democracy.

Please think back to a LOT of things that have been "legit" over the years -- as in backed up by law and even in some cases the Constitution, at least as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the time: Slavery, "separate but equal," Jim Crow laws, etc.

None of those were demoractic or pro-democracy, but they sure as hell were "legit."

Eloriel

It's enshrined in the California constitution for goodness sakes. That makes it democratic. And none of those comparisons is fair. The people -- the California voters -- still get to decide this.

nt

and I will add that Fascism and Nazism is not a trait in a person's DNA, anymore than empathy and love for justice is.

Thanks for the qualified endorsement. It made me laugh.

as to call this recall "democratic". While, it most likely is "legal" (I'm not sure if I even trust that those signatures were legal, or if the polls are legit), but still it's not exactly democratic. If, all the votes don't count, and almost definetely all votes WON'T count (considering that dumbass judge dismissed the ACLU's lawsuit), this recall will be about as "democratic" aS the 2000 selection.

Also, Arnold can win this race by getting less than 15% of the vote! This is not democratic. It is a loophole in the law, that allows people with a twisted agenda and tons of cash to subvert what was atually a democratic election that took place a year ago.

It seems as though you are the one confused terms. The Nazi party was both democratically and legally elected. That didn't make it morally right then, and it doesn't make what's happening in our country right now. I'm sure we would all agree that Nazi party was not in the true spirit of what we would consider democratic.

Elections, a democracy does not automacally make.

Since when is democracy about morality? In a democracy, you can elect morons, corrupt scumbags and demogogues. It is just the hope that a democracy will minimize these things.

The problem here is not that Ahnold can win with 15%, the problem is this is a short and wide-open race, which encourages everybody in the state to run. The net result is a wildly split vote. So what? It's still a fair and legal and democratic election.

Since when is democracy about morality? In a democracy, you can elect morons, corrupt scumbags and demogogues. It is just the hope that a democracy will minimize these things.

The problem here is not that Ahnold can win with 15%, the problem is this is a short and wide-open race, which encourages everybody in the state to run. The net result is a wildly split vote. So what? It's still a fair and legal and democratic election.

As I said earlier, it seems legal (assuming the signatures are legit), but as the ACLU was showing last week, it will be anything but fair and democratic.

The ACLU showed that there is no time for poorer precincts to get everything ready in time. So is the final outcome "fair" if poorer precincts don't have polling stations? Or, if the polling stations are equipped with obviously flawed equipment, such as punch card ballots? Your flawed reasoning is similar to that of the judge's in last week's ruling.

Was the 2000 election fair and democratic? Was the impeachment of Clinton fair? It may all have been legal, but they were anything but fair, and in the case of the former, not democratic.

Are we to assume that if something is legal it is automatically fair and legal?

it is claimed that the invisible cloud guy was jesus' dad.

AND it is claimed that his parentage had LOTS of influence on his beliefs.

AND it is said that "the sins of the fathers..."

That as sympathetic to Christianty I might become as I grow older, I'll still never be one.

but i never really centered on that verse.

not really saying anthing here, just agreeing w/ you on that.

Didn't raise Jesus, Joseph did. You can think of Jesus as Joseph's adopted son or son by marriage. Nevertheless, Joseph raised Jesus, but Jesus found another calling.

What does that make me?

.

Just kidding part of my family are Italians and they get asked all of the time if they have MOB family ties just because they are Italian and Sicilian.

We're getting into guilt-by-association territory here.

I despise the thought of Arnold as my governor, especially knowing that he's in with Rove. I'll fight not to let this recall happen. And yes, I know he had (has?) former Nazis as friends.

But we must not stoop to the level of the Ashcrofts of the world who point at a person and denounce them as guilty for knowing or being related to a "terrorist". Unless Arnold has actually helped further the Nazi cause in some way - and we can prove it - assigning his father's sins to him is not a place I want to go.

Slippery slope, is all I'm sayin'.

Years ago, I read that much of the Nazi mindset could be explained by the authoritarian and often abusive standards of child-rearing prevalent in Germany.

It's clear that Arnold is a bully, someone who enjoys using his physical power, his status, and his wealth to intimidate others.

If his upbringing was authoritarian, if he was taught that it's okay to bully those who are weaker than you are, if he believes that people with power have the right to do whatever they want, then he is not fit for a position of leadership in a democratic society.

That doesn't make any more a bully than my personal trainer at the gym.

Have you read what it supports?

It's clear that Arnold is a bully, someone who enjoys using his physical power, his status, and his wealth to intimidate others.

Please support the contention that he 'enjoys' usig physical power to intimidate others.

There are some troubling allegations, and at least one corroborated incident of Bustamante using the n-word in public.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=225017

But thanks for the heads-up, in any case.

I don't totally disagree -- but I am saying to keep an open mind about how much Nazi influence, or fascist beliefs and philosophies Arnold may hold, disguised (to him, and all of us) as good ole contemporary Republican beliefs.

Eloriel

N/T

In and of itself, this revelation does not mean much, and if this was Schwarzenegger's ONLY link to Nazi's it would be meaningless. However, it ISN'T Schwarzenegger's only link to Nazis.

He was also a supporter of Kurt Waldheim (a Nazi war criminal). A Slate article about this happens to mention another link to Nazis:

Why on Earth didn't Schwarzenegger take this opportunity to speak out against Waldheim? It surely isn't because Schwarzenegger himself had any Nazi sympathies (though during the filming of the documentary Pumping Iron, he reportedly once made a foolish comment praising Hitler).
http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2086742/

So lets see, his father was SA, he supported (and still apparantly supports) a Nazi war criminal, and possibly made a statement praising Hitler.

Of course, each of these allegations by themselves would not mean much, but taken as a whole, it seems to suggest a pattern of pro-Nazi beliefs held by Schwarzenegger.

Military policemen were responsible for traffic, securing the rear areas, dealing with unwanted locals and a host of other questionable "maintaining authority" duties. The Baltic States and the area around there were particularly unsavory for killing and deportation of Jews. He would have, at the very least, known all about the Einsatzgruppen and the deportation/execution policies.

Are the sins of the fathers the fault of the children? The real question is: how much of the beliefs from which those sins originate have the children accepted as their own beliefs? How much of the actions are merely "ancient history"? How do the strict authoritarian principles of a highly competitive Austrian Policeman course through his son? Are the handicapped inferior? Are the lesser races weaker and lazier? Are the weak and even lazy people "fair game" for the more motivated master race to do with as they will?

There's a commodification, classification and dismissal of vast tracts of people based on ideology that is inherent in the social darwinism of the Republican merchants of hate. Is he going to tacitly dismiss the poor and disenfranchised as lazy and fair game for the exploitation of the Ayn Randian "superior" like himself? As he extols the virtue of someone coming to this country poor and working hard, does he also embody the belief that if you don't make money your 24-hour god you are an inferior?

These are the real sins fo the father that need to be explored. How much of this crap has worn off on the son?

It's VERY fair to ask. His repudiation would be nice to hear, and not along the lines of killing Jews, but along the lines I've addressed above.

issue -- and it is worse than unwise to allow it to be brushed off. The issue is not whether A. Schwarzenegger is a Nazi or even if he is a Nazi sympathizer.

The question is about his personal philosophy and his political perspective. For example, does he believe in the theory of Supermen -- Übermenschen? This is not idle curiosity by any means. Does he see himself as an exemplar of the Teutonic Übermensch?

Why is he running for office? He's repeatedly said, as have members of his campaign, that this is not a campaign about issues; oh no, it's a campaigh about "leadership," Führerschaft, and that's essentially ALL it's about. If that's so, what does he regard the role of the Führer to be and how would he implement his Führerschaft in the context of California's democratic institutions and traditions?

One can build on questions like these. The point is to find out from him what his world view is and how he would implement his politics. And make your own decision about whether he is grounded in Nazi-think or not.

We must not run away from this issue.

It's not a so much a question of repudiating affiliations as it is the philosophy of personal superiority, right of dominance and disregard for the weak and inferior. These are the dangerous traits, not the design of one's lapel pin.

Nazism can be far too easily compartmentalized and dismissed with a flip "I don't want to kill off a culture" line...

Nietzsche died 1900. His philosophy was transformed into something else. Here a text from Alan Taylor, from the University of Texas at Arlington which explain some differences:
http://www.uta.edu/english/apt/fritz/anietzschenazi.html

Something about the meaning of "Übermensch":
The famous Nietzsche's metaphors, - "God is Dead!", "Wille zur Macht", "Übermensch" - appearing for the first time in Nietzsche's "Thus spoke Zarathustra" (1884) have been presented by the philosopher is a certain sequence: "God is Dead!" refers to the past, "Wille zur Macht" refers to the present, and "Übermensch" is associated with the future, though their temporal significance is carefully veiled by the literally and paradoxically 'timeless' concept of Eternal Recurrence.
<...>
"Übermensch" is a metaphor par excellence, though it can be rather intelligently interpreted in a literal way (as Robert Musil did in a circumspect fashion in "The Man of No Qualities", for The Man is oriented towards future and a somewhat wistful longing for Messiah, which is highly reminiscent of Nietzsche's Übermensch). But such is the paradoxical nature of all Nietzsche's doctrines - that whether they are read linearly or functionally - they still produce a dynamitic impact; it is, in fact, the subtlety characteristic of any work of genius. Übermensch with all his strength, and valor, and evil, and power is, therefore, not merely 'a puppet in the clouds', though at the same time it is - metaphorically, a puppet as all gods and all truths are in Nietzsche's world - Übermensch is an embodiment of Hope and individual hope, an earthly Goal as a substitute for belief in the afterworlds, a noble antithesis to the effeminate and degrading positivism, or, in short, a dream about a sublimation of the masses into few Individuals. Real and unreal, the posit has the ability to ignite and to blast, to ennoble, to strengthen, and so cannot be treated 'simply' as either/or, since as soon as its relation to reality becomes fixed, i.e. reduced to being unipolar, it, unlike magnets, looses the ability to cause an impact and therefore stops to be Nietschean.
http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/gsandss/slavic/papers/metaphors.html

And a text from Charles M. Yablon, Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. "Nietzsche and the Nazis: The impact of National Socialism on the philosophy of Nietzsche."
http://www.google.de/search?q=cache:6WdCeZbexwQJ:www.cardozo.yu.edu/cardlrev/v24n2/Yablon%2520Final%2520Version.pdf+National+Socialism+nietzsche&hl=de&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8


Btw, I don't think Schwarzenegger believes in the philosophy of Nietzsche, which was transformed by the Nazis. Yes, he often talks of leadership, but I think he means to take responsibility. To act, not to philosophize. He got a hard childhood with beatings and severity. He early left his parents. He breaks with his father and he even didn't visit his grave. I think he was minted by America and his private american dream.

Kellanved brings another imho importend point: "he was one of the VIPs who opposed the Austrian coalition with Neo-Nazi Haider."
There are many european politicians who don't. Like Stoiber or Berlusconi.

I don't like him, because I think he simplify matters, he's a buddy-type and showman, but politic needs complex answers. I could never imagine to vote for him, but I don't think his childhood puts some Nazi-ideology into his thinking. I've more concern about the "normal" similarities to Nazi-ideology which I identify in the republican party.

A. Schwarzenegger's personal philosophy and political point of view. He hasn't been asked, and he hasn't volunteered anything except his devotion to "Leadership." The fact that he was raised by a Nazi SA officer may or may not be important to this issue, but the parallels need investigation.

As for his denunciation of Haider when Haider's statements became widely known -- and widely condemned throughout Europe and the world -- we should also look into what Haider claims is Schwarzenegger's long time friendship with him.

There could well be much more here than meets the eye -- or much less.

To deny the relevance of the questions and to refuse to examine the issue is simply stupid.

thats his choice. To condemn someone for their fathers actions wouldnt allow people to evolve. This thread, much like the other thread about those trying to validate mudslinging, is just stupid. Move on.

has been since day one when this story was resurrected. To me, it smacks of "when did you stop beating your wife", because it makes wild leaps of assumption given the following

1) Arnold's dad may have been a Nazi
2) Fathers exert some, if not tremendous, influence on their sons, generally
3) Arnold has never come right out and said "The Nazis were the most horrible, despicable humans ever"

so....he must be a Nazi, right? Ach, there are PLENTY more reasonable ways to bring him down (his Chancey Gardineresque ability to duck any meaningful or detailed opinion on any issue crucial to the election) than to smear him with his father's sins.

Call me naive, call me too-easy-on-him...I just don't buy it.

I think you're sadly misnterpreting what those of us in California who are concerned about A. Schwarzenegger's candidacy are worried about.

First, if anyone is accusing him of being a Nazi, I'm not aware of it.

Second, Gustav Schwarzenegger WAS a Nazi, and an officer in the SA. There's no "may have been" about it.

It is also widely reported that he was brutal and cruel to his son Arnold, and that this brutality and cruelty was a major factor in Arnold's determination to become a champion bodybuilder.

It is also widely reported that A. Schwarzenegger did not attend his father's funeral, and he did invite ex-Nazi Kurt Waldheim to his wedding.

Most of us realize that you cannot go very far in Germany or Austria without running into Nazis or the offspring of Nazis, and some of us know that while open Nazi-ism is suppressed in Germany, it is not extinct by any means. Nazi-ism and Fascism are just as dangerous today as they were 70 years ago -- just not as popular, yet.

A. Schwarzenegger has said that one reason he left Austria was that he could not stand his nation's socialism.

Now in California, A. Schwarzenegger wants to become governor, and he wants to become governor without addressing serious issues or addressing serious questions about his personal philosophy and political perspective. He and his campaign offer themselves on the basis of "leadership" alone. That is essentially the entirety of the Schwarzenegger platform.

Well. "Leadership," Führerschaft, is a primary Nazi political interest and goal. Perhaps A. Schwarzenegger came to his desire to be "Leader" independently -- or perhaps he was influenced by his father's Nazi-ism. We don't know. We should question, and we should find out.

This is not a minor matter.

It is fundamental to the future of California.

Don't presume that people are saying A. Schwarzenegger is a Nazi. That's not the issue. The issue is whether Californians will unknowingly elect a man who may be strongly attracted to or influenced by Nazi philosophy and political perspective to the highest office in the state.

And what I am saying -- and what most Californians I know who are concerned about this are saying -- it's better to find out about a candidate before an election than after. These questions better be asked. And there better be damn good answers.

and I would assume that the thought of an Ah-nuld victory turns my stomach just as much as it would yours. That said, let me respond:

1) ...if anyone is accusing him of being a Nazi, I'm not aware of it.
- Wasn't that the point of this thread? Also, why would this even be brought up if not to score cheap (read GOPesque) political points?

2) ...Gustav Schwarzenegger WAS a Nazi, and an officer in the SA. There's no "may have been" about it.
- OK, so you were there in 1939 after the Kristallnacht and shared a beer with the newly deputized brownshirt Papa Schwarzenegger? My facetiousness aside, I'll grant you that his father was a Nazi...what does that have to do with Arnold?

3) ...It is also widely reported that he was brutal and cruel to his son Arnold, and that this brutality and cruelty was a major factor in Arnold's determination to become a champion bodybuilder. It is also widely reported that A. Schwarzenegger did not attend his father's funeral.
- I still don't see where the father's influence led Arnie to sieg heil as an adult. In fact, from your 1st point, sounds like Arnie was brutalized to the point of wanting to be anything else but "just like his father". Skipping a funeral is not exactly the expected behavior of a starry-eye kid who idolizes dear ol' Dad, dontcha think?

4) ...Most of us realize that you cannot go very far in Germany or Austria without running into Nazis or the offspring of Nazis, and some of us know that while open Nazi-ism is suppressed in Germany, it is not extinct by any means. Nazi-ism and Fascism are just as dangerous today as they were 70 years ago -- just not as popular, yet.
- Gee, I hadn't realized Arnie gave up California livin' to move back to Innsbruck. That is your point, right? That neo-Nazism is alive in Europe, as opposed to Beverly Hills?

5)...A. Schwarzenegger has said that one reason he left Austria was that he could not stand his nation's socialism.
- Now I'm getting your train of thought...because Schwarzenegger and Hitler both hated socialism, that makes them the same. And me too, since I hate socialism. As does everyone in the fucking free world.

6) ...Now in California, A. Schwarzenegger wants to become governor, and he wants to become governor without addressing serious issues or addressing serious questions about his personal philosophy and political perspective. He and his campaign offer themselves on the basis of "leadership" alone. That is essentially the entirety of the Schwarzenegger platform.
- I agree with you 100%...he is Chauncey Gardiner on steroids.

5) ...Well. "Leadership," Führerschaft, is a primary Nazi political interest and goal. Perhaps A. Schwarzenegger came to his desire to be "Leader" independently -- or perhaps he was influenced by his father's Nazi-ism. We don't know. We should question, and we should find out.
- Ah, you lost me again. Can you tell me a political philosophy in the entire history of man that does NOT emphasize "leadership" as a "primary interest and goal"??? Except, of course, for the Democratic Party of the U.S. circa 2000-present.

6) ...Don't presume that people are saying A. Schwarzenegger is a Nazi. That's not the issue. The issue is whether Californians will unknowingly elect a man who may be strongly attracted to or influenced by Nazi philosophy and political perspective to the highest office in the state.
- Simply by bringing this issue up, we (Democrats) are playing the snide, reptillian GOP game of "Smear 'em and Run"...just because we're not saying "Arnold's a Nazi" does not excuse us from making wild leaps of assumption based on what his father did over 60 years ago. I wholeheartedly agree with you that "better to find out about a candidate before an election than after" and that Arnold's statement that he would reveal his economic plan AFTER the Oct. 7 election should be proof positive to every voter that this delusional lummox cannot be handed the reins of executive leadership. However, by engaging in this amateur psychoanalysis and grafting the sins of the father onto the son without any evidence or reason, we obscure the real issues with Arnold and do nothing but garner public sympathy for him.

I live in California, and I am aligned with many others in California who are concerned that an unqualified and politically unknown movie star might be elected governor on the basis of image rather than fact.

It's interesting to me that some on this thread are more interested in ignoring facts about A. Schwarzenegger -- or in mischaracterizing them -- than in learning more or questioning the candidate, or his background or his fitness for office. And it is fascinating that some of the terminology used by some posters is right out of the GOP playbook. It's doubly ironic given the routine accusation against those who are concerned about Schwarzenegger's background that they are using "GOP/freeper tactics." Talk about projection!

First, what is this thread about? It seems to have started with a news item that A. Schwarzenegger's father was a Nazi SA officer. That was followed immediately by a controversy over whether one should concern themselves with Schwarzenegger's father or not. My point from my first post on this thread to now is simple: the issue of A. Schwarzenegger's Nazi father should not be dismissed out of hand; it may have bearing on his fitness for office (along with many other issues) specifically with regard to his father's influence on Schwarzenegger's personal philosophy and political point of view. Questions should be asked, answers should be insisted upon.

You misconstrue my points, I assume deliberately. As far as I know no one on this thread has called Schwarzenegger a Nazi. I certainly haven't. And calling him a Nazi is not at all what the thread is about -- but maybe you would like to make it be about that so you have a strawman to demolish. Is that it?

What does any father have to do with his son? For example, what does G.H.W. Bush have to do with his son? Anything? Nothing? If you see no connection between fathers and sons, then I want to know what universe you live in, because it ain't the one I live in. We don't know what influence Gustav Schwarzenegger had on his son, and I want some answers about it.

Again, no one that I know of is accusing A. Schwarzenegger of being a Nazi, but so what if they were? It would be a valid issue to raise. But nobody IS raising it here except those who want desperately to fight that strawman. Some people, myself included, want to know about Schwarzenegger's personal philosophy and political point of view, and I'll make my own decisions, thank you, about whether those factors about him are strongly influenced by Nazi-ism.

Hatred of socialism in the context of A. Schwarzenegger's hatred of Austrian socialism is not something shared by "everyone in the fucking free world." Not by a long shot. But people who know nothing about the world except what they hear on hate radio might think otherwise. The odd thing is that forms of socialism are doing surprisingly well in much of the rest of the world. And quite a few are happier about it than not. You learn something new every day.

It seems to me that only those who want to do battle with strawmen instead of addressing issues are bringing up the "Arnold=Nazi" meme.

Flail away.

i agree with you wholeheartedly.

Quoting from the article:

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, which in 1990 investigated Gustav Schwarzenegger's wartime past at his son's request, plans to conduct new research before the Oct. 7 California recall election to establish what the father's unit did, said Rabbi Marvin Hier.

Whatever it finds out, "We will give it to Arnold, then to the public," Hier told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from the center's Los Angeles headquarters. "Whatever the record shows, so may it show. Should that record have any bearing on Arnold Schwarzenegger himself? In my opinion, absolutely not."
(emphasis is mine)

Have a nice day.

I apologize for my ignorance, but your glib retort went right over my head. Feel free to respond to what I said as well, if you'd like.

Just wanted you to know that here is one citizen of the fucking free world who does not hate Socialism. In fact, it is a much better system than the corrupt capitalism which this country has fallen into.

Richard M. Daley - current mayor of Chicago and one of the prominent national profiles in the Democratic Party - is the son of the former Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley. You know, the belligerent anti-Semite who ordered his police force to bash in the heads of young anti-war protestors outside the 1968 Democratic national convention. The elder Daley was often called a "Nazi" by his critics. His son, however, has won a hard-earned reputation for fairness and openess with people of all colors and creeds.

So, should we throw out the son because his father was a corrupt evil prick?

Attacking him because of his parents is unfair; his own actions made him vulnerable enough.

And: he was one of the VIPs who opposed the Austrian coalition with Neo-Nazi Haider.

Of course that is true. That is whow the story is going to bury this issue possibly. Imagine a clean bill of health from the Simon Weisenthal Center. Sure Arnold could be 100% sincere. Yet the fact of being a big donor to the institute is another sad pattern endlessly repeated among public advocacy groups. Even innocence is tainted with
such an exchange of money- even if it seems to be in good conscience.

You don't have to be a Ludlum fan to suspect the supporters of Holocaust organizations with ulterior motives. Yet that paranoia, without proof, will not outweigh the natural sympathy such as you, to your personal credit, put forth. Does it matter? maybe. Maybe not, but it probably will boost the GOP wunderkind- not tag him.

We should not go there, into the paid spin machine to get reborn as Arnold sympathizers. First there is the issue of his total loyalty to the Bushes and their corporate raiders. Let the rest simmer in the background. IF Arnold has completely fled from his father's possible bent he has a strange political way of showing it. In corporatist elitist aspirations lies his spiritual ties to history. This lurid focus on his father may only serve to whitewash today's much worse reality.

Not a stormtrooper but something much much higher up the ladder of power and respectability. Yet still a stooge with delusions.

His personal history of groping women and all his other immature behavior is enough to keep him from winning, and keep in mind that HE CAN NEVER BE PRESIDENT because he wasn't born here, and Bustamante is already beating him by large margin (35% v.s. 22%) in the polls! So who cares what his father was?
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0803/24recall.html

...to circumvent the will of the voters. That's what the Clinton impeachment was all about....an attempt to (illegally) remove a sitting president using false charges and against the will of the people. In plain words...it was an attempted coup.

- Arnold is suspect simply because he's a 'friend of Bush*' and is among those who continue to not only cover for the Bushies...but help them gain more unlawful power.

Ahnold's Pater being in the UberReich are ridiculous

But they are okay with reminding people of "Bill Clinton's trailer trash mother" . . .

It's great to read most of the posts rejecting this "Nazi father"
thing. People are redeemable, and I'm glad most DUers recognize this.
Just like as small percentage people blasted Clinton's mother unfairly,
the vast majority saw that as what it was also: a non-issue.

.

Holy Joe is so far up the republicans butts we need to confront him on what he thinks about Arnuld Daddy being a Nazi.

If he was rebellious then why does he always have good things to say about his boyhood and hid Daddy.

Many of us have our own issues with Lieberman, but they involve his relationship with ENRON and his support of the war, the very same questions we should be asking of Arnold and McClintock.

n/t

and, on the whole, I am proud of DUers not buying the sins of the fathers thing. We, nor should the CA guv race, go there.

IMHO....

But given the ugly way all this shit transpired--RNC: Issa, who's that?--and the free media ascendancy of AS, and, most particularly, the way in which Gore father's racist past was sprinkled at the edges of 2K mainstream political discussion, floated constantly on RW shows (not to mention Hannity brings it up *last week* on radio in race discussion *outside* of guv race!!!) it takes some serious, blood-drawing lip biting, I'll confess, for me not to spit some reddish words back in their faces. (Plus, the same thing re: Clinton's mentor, Fulbright, which I suppose is technically different b/c you can't pick yr dad, but to me, is still cheap shot. Hannity went on about this, too.)

At any rate this is one of those threshold tests that is tough. On the one side there's exceedingly valid "let's not stoop to their level," especially when there's so much other more important stuff; on the other, "all's fair in love and war, and this is not only war but the other side has no qualms using this particular weapon" hardly seems to be a completely damnable way of thinking, esp if the race is close.

I know, despite message length, I added nothing to this discussion. Just been thinking about it, and as a non CA resident, recently came to the "high roads" terms w/ it.

IMHO...

if not A. Schwarzenegger's personal philosophy and political point of view aand the influences which have shaped them? What are the important issues if not A. Schwarzenegger's governmental philosophy and his approach to California's difficulties? What are the important issues if we know nothing about him except reports in some domestic foreign media about his roaming hands, marital infidelity, boorish and bullying behavior, and vast wealth?

He won't say much -- and most of what he says is contradicted the same day by his staff. He is apparently driven entirely by ego and desire for love and power, and who knows, some of that may be a result of his upbringing.

Ultimately the fact that his father was a Nazi SA officer may not be the most important issue, but it is and should be something to discuss and raise questions about. It should not be something shunted aside or dismissed simply because some people don't want to talk about it.

What I want to know is why people are so eager to ignore it.

So far, no one has come up with a credible reason why it should be ignored.

Nazis don't give money to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, as Arnold has.

This seems to be a really big issue for you, so I wonder why? It can't be whatever associations Arnold's father, who died in 1972, had with the Nazis during the Third Reich. Millions of people of German descent would fall in that category, and it is a smear and a Nazi-like behavior to suggest that their ancestry determines who they are.

Did you know that the Nazis sent to the gas chambers Catholics simply because generations before an ancestor of theirs had been Jewish?

Aren't you engaging in a similar witchhunt when you say that blood carries with it the crimes, or the imperfections, of our ancestors?

I suggest you engage in a bit of self-criticism and see how much your own behavior parallels the mindset of the Germans in the 1930s.

You continue to misstate, distort and go on wild flights of fancy that I can only assume are meant in jest because they have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and if you don't mean them in jest then what is your point?

There is no witchhunt except in your fevered imagination.

There are questions to ask, and I have stated them as clearly as I can. If you don't want to ask these questions, don't. You'd probably be happier discussing Cruz Bustamante, anyway. If you can manage to get the California media to discuss his candidacy rationally (and more frequently than one minute for every 20 minutes spent on A. Schwarzenegger) then maybe you'll do some good.

For your information, my grandmother was a Bavarian Catholic whose grandparents converted from Judaism. She died in 1943.

it's not an easy call. What, did you find my tone stridently anti yours? I tried to show it was a difficult issue, with good reasoning on both sides.

I also clearly stated that I was not a resident and that all of this was opinion rather than belief in right or wrong.

Hence, my opinion is there are fare more important things for the nation.

As for CA, how bout where you started. Would consider taxes, then at first presser, AS rules it out. Then aide says not so fast. That's one issue tied to the man himself, i.e. duplcity and truth bending and not bring teady for the big show.

Then there's environment. Port security. Aging population. Housing bubble. Energy. Immigration.

These are all issues to be adressed. How to pay for some of the above, what to do about others. Housing bubble, esp, seems to be a huge problem in CA. Done some research on it for a candidate myself w/r/t my home state. Lots of research one soon discovers has been done on the CA situation, as N Ca esp is the greatest concentration of overvaluation in the nation. Silicon Valley, SF at large, Fairfax (read a detailed piece on this community as an example). Their P:E ratios, so to speak, are way out of whack, i.e. renters will only rent at an earning ratio at 12% or so of nat avg. Razor thin, my friend, and proof off the problem by personal economic behavior.

Any one got a plan for that? Does AS? Another suffcient downturn and millions losing sig percents of their total worth in a feedback loop of bancruptcies and no buyers b/c of fewer loans or "high risk loans only" will drive market downward, leaving owners stuck paying off a house, no matter how good the rates, now worth .8x of its purhase price.

Like I said, I think the father thing has two sides. You're the one that upped the ante by tacitly arguing it was of importance. (BTW, isn't this at least some part of the reason AS didn't attend his dad's funeral? ? Desn't his non-attendance it weaken yr position?) But if you want to think that is more important than the above and have yr candidates and media talking about Gutave for the next few weeks rather than, say, the above--to name but one issue--best of luck. If it turns the trick, I'll be happy about the means but remain personally conflicted about the means.

but your list of pertinent issues is certainly valid, and we can only hope that eventually some of the breathless media will start digging into these things. But there is so little time, and the candidate is so lacking in specifics, I doubt we'll be able to find much out until well after his election (if he is elected) or until after the issues are mooted by his defeat.

That's why I'm concerned about hearing about his personal philosophy and political point of view. What does he mean, for example, when he referrs to "reforming the political system" in his ads.

We can't assume anything.

Cheers.

I don't understand many DUer's complete dismissal of this issue as at least a factor in determining Arnold's suitability for office. It may not be the number one consideration, but it is wise to get some questions answered before the decision is made. People seem so strongly adamant about the fact that there is no connection between the potential influencing of the son by the father.

Call me cynical, but Arnold may have contributed to the Wiesenthal center just to obfuscate the connection between him "the candidate" and his father's Nazi past. I think Arnold has been preparing for this for a long time, and saw the potential damage.

Anyway, it is inconceivable to me to believe that a child has not been shaped in anyway by an abusive, authoritarian parent - as much as we try to escape our childhoods, our environments have much greater impacts on us than we think.

DU-ers who seem to use a lot of GOP/FReeper lingo, hate radio sound bites, and so forth. I find it interesting that it is primarily the GOP and its minions on hate radio and on cable television who get antsy and froth at the mouth over any consideration of the connection between Schwarzenegger and his Nazi father. Thus, my crypic "Flypaper" comment. We're seeing others who seem to enjoy gaming the topic for fun and frolic. And we're seeing some who are engaging in straightforward discussion and comment. It's a mixed bag.

Your point about A. Schwarzenegger's contribution(s) to the Wiesenthal Center is well-taken, although his contributions long predate his candidacy. A. Schwarzenegger's "Nazi problem" goes back a long way -- and he's used various strategies to deal with it. But the fact that he has given more than $1 million to the Wiesenthal Center and has been honored by them with their National Leadership Award among other things, may have nothing to do with Schwarzenegger's political point of view and personal philosophy. All I can say about his donations is that large donors often act in their self-interest first. There's nothing wrong with that.

Californians deserve more information about the candidate before they go to the voting booth on October 7, regardless of whether we intend to vote for the movie star or not. And for reasons I can't fully understand, both the GOP and some posters here are adamantly opposed to exploring this topic in depth.

It's a mystery. Innit?

what shall we do to appease your desire for a peek in the candidate's mind? A litmus test for any aspirant to office where they must spell out their political philosophy and a timeline, in detail, of how they arrived at that viewpoint? Are we really going to construct a filter in the electoral process to weed out Nazis?

The people of California will speak on Oct. 7 on whether they agree that Arnold hasn't shared a goddamn word about his personal philosophy...or that they don't care. We cannot force Arnold to testify how he feels about Nazis, nor should we. By "discussing and raising questions" about his father's Nazi past, we look like political bottom-feeders.

We just simply disagree on the legitimacy of this issue. Have at it, if you must.

The two issues are very different and the second one does raise questions as to his judgment and moral clarity in condemning Nazism.

But, really let's look at this race, in purely utilitarean terms.

Would the people of CA, be more likely to vote against Arnold, if they found out his daddy was a Nazi?

My guess is no. Most people on this board would agree. This is not going to get anywhere -- either with the pro Arnold media, or the moderate voting elecorate of CA.

Arnold has plenty of skeletons in his closet -- PLENTY! crude interactions with women, infidelity, support of that anti immigrant proposition a few years ago (that should really hurt him with latinos), and what should be most important -- his connections with Enron and Bush, and his inexperience with electoral politics.

If people want to play rough and dirty, they should by all means. I think Davis went over the top in many previous elections but I agree when he said, "politics is a dirty game"....but it's also a question of effectiveness, and for that reason alone (regardless of the sins of the father thing) I wouldn't make this too big of an issue -- these things can always backfire.

this is life or death in california! we californians have every right to "play dirty" if it means keeping the pukes out of the governor's office! like they wouldn't????

sorry, but i'm not willing to hand my state over just like that!

give your state over. Far from it. I'm just questioning the effectiveness of making this a big issue (of Arnold's father as a Nazi). Say it was an election in which it was a democrat that had emmigrated from Germany or Austria, and it happened to be the case that hs father had been a Nazi. Now, republicans could very well, and probably would have made this a big deal, but I think it still would have failed.

I think the people of California will really judge Arnold on his politics -- his views on gun control and abortion, his views on the budget, his ties with Enron and Bush (this should definetely be the most important thing), and his support of proposition ??? (the anti immigrant thing a few years ago.

Hey if you want to have fun with dirty campaigning, have the tabloids dish a few stories out dealing with his marital indiscretions, and his groping of women.

I think the Willhelm friendship should be questioned, same with his relationship with Haider. I could even see tieing the Nazi daddy thing with all this, but portraying Arnold as some sort of closet Nazi would probably not go too far.

Yes his father's history is suspect but the most telling event is Arnold inviting Kurt Waldheim to his wedding. He didn't come but Arnold still toasted him.

It will be interesting to se how the Weisenthal Center will spin this part of Arnold's history.

Are they Nazis too? The patriarch Joseph Kennedy most definitely was an appeaser and a Nazi sympathizer, as were all the American industrialists of that day. But to suggest that Joe Kennedy Jr., who died during the war, and Jack Kennedy, who nearly met the same fate of his brother, were Nazis because they were brought up in old Joe's household would be dismissed by rational people as being totally ridiculous!

Or Teddy or Bobby consort with known Nazi war criminals as adults, though? Because Arnold did.

What we refer to as a drug trafficker today.

Does that make any difference?

I didn't think so.

Hell, why look at Nazis in Germany and Austria? We can look here at home. For ecample, Henry Ford was a huge antisemite and did support the Nazis to some extent. Say, his son (or is it his grandson?) were to run for something today, should his fathers loony antisemitsm come into picture. Of course not, enviornmentalists, would attack Ford on the fact that his company produces vehicles with terrible fuel effeciency and these attacks would be the right ones.

The point of this is that his daddy being a Nazi is a non starter with most people, and many people just a generation or two before this one IN THIS NATION, did not agree with the idea that people of all races should have equal rights. Just a few generations ago in THIS NATION, we had a war partly over this issue. Many in the south have confederate g-grandfathers. Many of those people are also against such beliefs.

I could go on...but I won't. This issue is a non starter.

an avowed Nazi and admirer of Hitler and Mussolini, together with the likes of William Randolph Hearst and the Rockefellers, and that great American icon, Charles Lindbergh.

as a Nazi appeaser, sympathizer? I'm not trying to be picayune, just want to see more on this.

I want to know if the Kennedy's had vested interests in Nazi enterprises.

There are multiple historical sources, many on the internet, on Joseph Kennedy's anti-Semitism and admiration of Hitler and the Nazis (a view prevalent among the American elites at the time). It is also part of the public record that President Roosevelt recalled Ambassador Kennedy at the request of Churchill. I suggest a trip to the library to really get the full flavor!

Here are a handful of internet sources, which should never be cited as a primary source on any research paper:

Ambassador Joseph Kennedy faced harsh public criticism for his appeasement of Hitler, as well as for his public assertions that Britain would be destroyed by the Nazis.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/kennedy_early.html

Joseph Kennedy and the Jews
By Edward Renehan, Jr.
Mr. Renehan's most recent book is The Kennedys at War, 1937-1945, published in April 2002 by Doubleday.

Arriving at London in early 1938, newly-appointed U.S. Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy took up quickly with another transplanted American. Viscountess Nancy Witcher Langhorne Astor assured Kennedy early in their friendship that he should not be put off by her pronounced and proud anti-Catholicism.

"I'm glad you are smart enough not to take my personally," she wrote. Astor pointed out that she had a number of Roman Catholic friends - G.K. Chesterton among them - with whom she shared, if nothing else, a profound hatred for the Jewish race. Joe Kennedy, in turn, had always detested Jews generally, although he claimed several as friends individually. Indeed, Kennedy seems to have tolerated the occasional Jew in the same way Astor tolerated the occasional Catholic.

As fiercely anti-Communist as they were anti-Semitic, Kennedy and Astor looked upon Adolf Hitler as a welcome solution to both of these "world problems" (Nancy's phrase). No member of the so-called "Cliveden Set" (the informal cabal of appeasers who met frequently at Nancy Astor's palatial home) seemed much concerned with the dilemma faced by Jews under the Reich. Astor wrote Kennedy that Hitler would have to do more than just "give a rough time" to "the killers of Christ" before she'd be in favor of launching "Armageddon to save them. The wheel of history swings round as the Lord would have it. Who are we to stand in the way of the future?" Kennedy replied that he expected the "Jew media" in the United States to become a problem, that "Jewish pundits in New York and Los Angeles" were already making noises contrived to "set a match to the fuse of the world."

http://hnn.us/articles/697.html

I take numerous trips to the library as I am sure you are aware, thank you.

I have heard and read some on the Kennedy's Anti-Semitism, Nazi appeasement, etc. and father Joe was probably Anti-Semitic. What has always gotten me is how that doesn't square with JFK and RFK's deeds. It is those deeds that interest me. The author of of the piece you cite has this to say as a followup to his article:

Subject: RE: Links seem to be missing
Posted By: Edward J. Renehan Jr.
Date Posted: April 30, 2002, 3:51 AM
Jack Kennedy emerged from World War II pretty much stripped of the anti-Semitism he had been raised on. This was, in my view and as I try to show in the book, the result of his service side-by-side with a number of Jews whom he came to respect as men and as warriors. (In fact, he came away from the War pretty much stripped of his capacity for bigotry generally, whether it be bigotry against Jews or others.)

On a macro level, I think what diminished the depth and scope of anti-Semitism in the world (at least for a time) was the grim, horrifying, undeniable fact of the Holocaust, from which every right-thinking person naturally recoiled.

The old man, Joseph Kennedy Sr., nevertheless always remained personally distrustful of Jews. He was never rehabilitated although he continued throughout his life to have some friends and retainers who were Jewish. - Edward J. Renehan Jr.

No doubt that part of the reason for Joe jr risking his life during the war was partly due to atone for his father's pro-Hitler views.

Let us not forget that Jack and Kennedy both served in McCarthy's red witchhunt Senate committee. Jack as a young Senator, Bobby as a staffer.

Let us not forget that as US Attorney General, Bobby authorized wiretaps on Dr, Martin Luther King.

Let us not forget that as President, Jack Kennedy was at first not sympathetic at all towards civil rights activists who were then challenging segregation in the South.

Let us also give credit to Bobby and Jack, for rising above the prejudices inherent to their class, and becoming the great Americans they did become.

Seldom are things in black and white. This was true for the Kennedys, and it is true for Arnold.

BTW, I think McClintock is the real threat and that Arnold will drop out.

What was true for the Kennedy's is NOT true for Arnold.

The Kennedy's past ties to Nazi's are out there for all to see and trumpeted as much as Clinton's penis. But the Right-Wing, with much closer and more vested interests has succeeded, due to the fascist Press they have control of, in squelching these links systematically and nearly thoroughly.

There is no balance in this. I, and I think many others, want to know what, if any, benefits Swartzy got from his old man being a Nazi. How did he, with very limited talent, get so far? Sounds like a Chimp n'Chief who did the same thing. Was Gustav a benificiary of the "ratline"???

Don't you want to see "ALL" of these fascists exposed, not just the ones you purport are on the Left?

a sentimental toast to Waldheim who couldn't make it to his wedding. The past is ONE thing..what Arnold does and who he admires DOES count.

n/t

I thought the Schwarzenegger's were Austrians and the SA was dissolved in 1934 with the death of Ernst Rhoem btw they were right wing on social issues but actually a little socialist on economics they did NOT like Hitler pandering to industrialists also if I am right about the SA Gustav couldnt have joined because Anchuluss was in 1938 you know unity with the reich for Austria.

not sure of what its role was in third riech, post Rohm...it was really a paramilitary auxiliary of the NSDAP, not a true military or police formation like the SS or GESTAPO.

Still, a thuggish bunch.

Not a good sign that Gustav was a member, but then Arnold was not a product of the 3rd Reich, either, having been born in 1947. From what I understand people didnt talk about that time much when Arnold would have been growing up.....

....which is proven, I think, by Arnold asking the Weisenthal Center to research his dad. Seems to imply that Arnold didnt know the full story, or suspected he didnt, about his dad, hence his private investigation

If he had proper conservative credentials, his daddy would've been SS all the way.

close, and common interests of the Repigs and Nazis.

Check this topic out for more details:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=199853&mesg_id=199853

I'd like to know more about what old Gustav did after WWII, how his son manages to get into the Hollywood elite, etc.

someone who GETS it!

OK, OK we can't say Aunuld is responsible for his dad being a Nazi, but we sure can look at how he got where he is. Maybe it was all his own doing, but maybe his old man had some links to people in the US who assisted Arnie.

Back in the 70's Arnold was viewed as a vain body builder, product of a material culture, etc. Even at his best, he seems dense and socially inept. There is something wrong with the guy. Just a hunch, but I'd say he was not in control of his own destiny, he had things handed to him and he is little more than a product for sale, like Dubya.

And Wall Street!

What's the problem here? They were just throwing a little party? Albeit a NAZI party...

Think parentage doesn't matter- nature versus nurture? Just ask Kim Il Jong or those Hussein boys; the apple didn't fall too far from the tree.

Of course everybody deserves a fair shake- Arnold got his when had a choice of party's; but sadly genetics were against him and he chose the wrong one.

Oh Well.

That's news to me. Where did you dig up that fact?

I may be guilty of a little fun filled hyperbole at Arnies' expense... but the study below certainly is provocotive on the possibility of a genetic component to being a retard-lican.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

I often think it's comical--Fal, lal, la! Fal, lal, la!
How Nature always does contrive--Fal, lal, la, la!
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!

I read an newspaper article about a year ago that mentioned a study that showed that they were right! Don't know if the study was the one cited above.

Having said that, pursuing that angle with Ahhnold probably won't produce any results. Our time is better spent going after him in other ways than this.

Are they next on the list to be villified. Dig a little deeper and you may even find some had (gasp) relatives in Hitler Germany. Anyone that is party to parentage smears should sniff around their own anus to make sure it don't stink.

of the LDP or conservative party and my grandfather served in the Japanese Imperial Army so I am screwed if I ever run for office.

Not that it matters. Schwartzenegger's symbolic weight's his obvious value. The cabal's project, the overall edifice, crafting Centurian Amerika one step at a time, through indirect suggestion of reassuring nepotism, arrangements that just could've been set in place by grandfathers and grandfathers' associates -- but of course weren't! None of this about what's shown in public, overt presentation of values. Instead, the cabal's appointees, backed by mobs, intel orgs and all the money in the world -- march on unimpeded, in acquision of full-spectrum dominance, to hide their true faces behind the sum of a thousand little messages in the suckers' lives every day. That, plus fresh gore in constant flow wherever in the Empire possible, coupled with chillingly bad prospects for most -- that is, everyone left behind the losers.

Symbols, all forming the tapestry in concert. Ol' Nazi Thurmond sent off in grand affair of state, segregationist cops the norm, prison and unemployment numbers for blacks that point to systemic racism, prison-labour and cop job-security scams whose funding is sacrosanct, welfare 'reform' that charges through legislation when portrayed as punishing black women -- and so on.

Reagan didn't need to be an actual cowboy and slaughterer of aboriginals to be an effective icon for 'Texas justice.' Mecha-cop Schwartzenegger signals the high-tech cowboy's entrance onto the set. With his 'robopath' image in films, the settings burnt-out dystopias, every citizen jailed indoors, watching for the next false-flag atrocity to come on teevee. This artist's pallette: dehumanised machines and bloodthirsty, absolutely obedient androids, hyperweaponised assassins of few words but many kills. And, of course, the Nazi-White Nationalist material. Success.

It's the aggregate affect, the propagandist's unspoken warning. Messages sent and noted, a wink being as good as a nudge. All of a piece with the ruling cabal's clashing-civilisations ursupation of power: Thank you, Operation Paperclip.

Again, this wretchedness hides behind the proles' braindead affection for easy answers and synarchism -- divinely inspired, infallable leaders. Fascist avatars with nice teeth and never a scarcity of money for cops. Emmanuel Goldstein on team with Family Values. It's about what makes rulers hungry to rule or, as virtues-czar and imploded libertine William Bennett might say: 'Somewhere tonight, someone's having fun... Ah! To be there! To be able to slit their throats, to watch the blood run, and let them know they're being taught a darn good lesson!'

Maybe if we start showing that to our friends, his star power will work against him.

I don't personally give a shit about the arguments pro or con. I gave up that kinda sophomoric stuff when I saw the attacks on the Clintons, the stolen 2000 election. I'm fighting for this country. And if someone wants to tell the public that Arnold's father was given Hitler's sperm to put into his wife to produce a young Hitler, let them spread it all over CA. It's no different than the same shit we have been subjected to by these rag mags for years as they promote the people who are KILLING our nation. Stop Arnold any way you can....I'm no longer particular. I will be a good repuke-type. I will be a Liberal Limbaugh. I will tell lies, if necessary, at the top of my lungs to try to save this nation. I will not go down easily.

I would give the same advice (if there's any real proof such campaigning actally works). I'm skeptical of that however. I think people definetely do buy a lot of bull shit, but I think there's a limit to that, especially in California.

If people want to make this a big issue DISCREETLY, by spreading it via tabloids, etc...then that's fine. I just think that by acting like this is a serious issue, we're wasting time.

Your general analyis is correct however. If lies are necessary so be it. Playing dirty is definetely necessary to some extent (Gray Davis has proven it effective in the past), but there is always a limit. Limbaugh and his likes are effective because they believe everything they say, and are driven by idealogy. I just think that with the likes of Arnold and Bush, there are are so many skeletons in ther closets, and they spew so many lies, such extremely desperate tactics may not be necessary, and possibly counterproductive.

If Arnold's dad Nazi past was a lie, don't you think he'd have lawyers all over it by now?

I was responding to the previous poster's comment that if lies are necessary to counteract the GOP, then so be it.

Sorry for not making it clear.

are those who don't want it to be used as an issue at all. It seems that if the questions raised here are brought up at ALL, some of the posters here fret that they will be the ONLY issues.

There are lots of issues regarding the A. Schwarzenegger candidacy, among them questions about his personal philosophy and political point of view, questions about the influence of Nazi beliefs in his upbringing, and possible current influence. These are valid questions that need to be asked and answered. But for some reason, the very fact that they exist and some of us want to find out more is interpreted as meaning they are the only things that matter to us.

Why?

And it continues to fascinate me that squelching the Schwarzenegger/Nazi story is an obvious objective of the state GOP and their minions on hate radio. Their tactics have included hurling venom at those who bring up these questions; telling the world that "nobody cares, and it won't work;" insisting that Cruz is the real racist; muttering darkly about a supposed brown-people take over of California; shouting that A. Schwarzenegger has given millions of dollars to the Wiesenthal Center, and they have given him awards so he's OK, now shut up; claiming Rabbi Heir has signed off on Arnold -- so why won't you, and so on. A lot of these same tactics oddly wind up on this thread. ("Flypaper")

Gee. Funny how that works.

But no one (not the GOP/hate radio nexus or on this thread) seems to be able to come up with a solid case that 1) the issue should be ignored; 2) that A. Schwarzenegger has not been influenced by Nazi "philosophy" in his own life and present-day will to power.


Cheers.

It must take a real dose of ignorance to equate those of us on this thread arguing that Arnold's father's sins should not be assumed to be passed on to the son to the GOP thugs spreading personal attacks on both Davis and Bustamante. Your hysterics aside, I'm glad you feel vindicated in your argument, but just because you choose to ignore the points raised on this thread does not make you right.

Funny how you complain about most of these points instead of refuting them directly. For example, what say you about Rabbi Hier's quote that, no matter what the new investigation into Papa Schwarzenegger's past, he will not believe that it reflects on Arnold? Wouldn't you agree that Rabbi Hier is in a much more legitimate position than either of us to comment on whether Arnold carries his father's beliefs?

Go ahead and compare me to GOP hate radio if you must...the consensus of this thread is that innuendo and smears about "Arnold's Nazi past" does nothing for our goal to thwart his desire for the governor's seat.

Remember this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=81213#81847

Pot, meet kettle.

Cheers.

All I see is that you've linked to this same entire thread. Congratulations..you must have gotten an "A" in cut-n-paste class. Unless I'm supposed to read your mind, I don't get this response.

Still waiting for you to directly address my points...

Looks like him... kinda'

Nice Moustache - LOL!

There is no guarantee that Cruz Bustamante could survive a mud-slinging war like this. Far right "watch" groups are already dredging up Bustamante's past membership in MEChA.

It's essentially playing the race card, and it's going to get very, very ugly. I think it's safe to guess that most Californians have never heard of MEChA, and when they do it's going to scare the crap out of them.

The Rs feel very threatened by Cruz's success up to now -- success achieved with very little coverage by the media (and what there is of it is sometimes very hostile), no advertising, no rallies, essentially just by announcing his candidacy, presenting a well-thought out plan for dealing with the budget shortfall over the short term, and going around talking to people in relatively small groups.

So, the race card has been pulled out, and it's being hammered full tilt. This is the Prop 187 campaign in a microwave on steroids. The bile and race hatred and fear being whipped up is everywhere on the AM hate-radio dial.

Cruz speaks Spanish!!!!! He says something different in Spanish than he does in English!!!!! "We" don't know what he's saying!!!!!! The terraists!!!! I'm LEAVING CALIFORNIA if this man wins!!!!! MAY AS WELL LIVE IN A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY!!!!

And that only a sample of the subtlety.

It'll get worse no doubt.

But with A. Schwarzenegger caliming to be an "independent" now, we can assume that the rabid rightards won't be able to get to the polls since they'll all be packing for Idaho.

be scrutinized but the lives of our parents? No one will be able to run for office soon.

Sounds like Total Information Awareness to me. Open the freaking can on Arnold. It's been opened on us already.

Just curious...

If Arnold was the son of Adolf Hitler.

So all the lesser Nazi's in WWII were okay in your book? Wow- you sure are forgiving.

If someone lived or was born in Germany or Austria, the chances of knowing someone or being around people that fought on the Nazi side in Germany are greater than living in the United States. I know from living in Germany that some people had no choice but to side with the Nazi party or die. Those are the people that were the kindest, cordial people to the US military living in Germany because back then we freed them from the Nazi regime. Some of the lesser Nazi's are ashamed of their Nazi past just as us combat Vets deal on a daily basis what we are responsible for. What more can I say except war is hell. Atrocities happen during war and nobody is innocent that participates. That is a harsh fact of life.

I posted this many times:

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



When Schwarzenegger arrived in America in 1968 as a young body-builder,
he allied himself with the Republican cause. George Bush, who recruited
him for fund-raising drives, dubbed him "Conan the Republican". But he
maintained less respectable friendships back in Austria.

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

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

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


I find it very interesting that people who want Arnold kept insulated from this are people who ferociously hate Davis or think the recall is just dandy. The rest, just cling to the wimpy "let's be fair" liberal fault that made the political discourse as one-sided as it is. We give them the benefit of doubt, hoping they'll do the same only to be bashed over the head again and again.
The most offensive argument to me is the Wiesental center one. Forgiveness is entirely personal - and it belongs to the aggrieved party. Reagan had no right to forgive the nazies in Bitburg. Wisental Center has no right (nor any of you) to forgive this nazi family in my name. I would be deeply offended on this personal level if this unrepentant nazi becomes a governor in this country.
Are there other issues? You bet! Democracy, Enron - plenty of them. But they do not insulate the man "fascinated with people who control other people" from his obviously nazi tendencies and I resent you saying otherwise.

I would be deeply offended on this personal level if this unrepentant nazi becomes a governor in this country.

You have supplied nothing but speculation as to whether he is a nazi sympathizer or not, let alone the ridiculous Chicken-Little assertion of him being an 'unrepentant nazi'. Get real.

But they do not insulate the man "fascinated with people who control other people" from his obviously nazi tendencies and I resent you saying otherwise.

They aren't obvious, and you haven't proven anthing other than a talent for wild, over-the-top speculation ande that you 'resent' things a wee bit too easily.

felix i have a lot of respect for your post because they are pretty fair in analysis of other posts. that being said i think here are some points that should of been made. note i did not read all the post.

considering arnold has no track record in terms of political office, it is difficult for voters to judge and evaluate arnold as a candidate for public office. There are no records to evaluate arnold by, and niether are there any bills and plans supported by arnold to evaluate him on. That being said i do not think anrold makes fora very good candidate considering the lack of political experience. But no one starts in the arena of politics with political experience and arnold is no exception. To evaluate arnold as a legimtate candidate, the best means are to evaluate arnold on his personal beliefs. Personal beliefs are important in the assessment of a candidate to understand how a candidate would act in office. Whether the candidate is an idealogue or a public advocate can be asessed by the views of the candidate. i have to leave so i will jump to a few conclusion rather than prove them. Therefore you must evaluate arnold on his personal beliefs and question how far his father's beliefs influence him and check his track record and public and private information. A character assessment is a must.

is up in arms and you can sling words at me, but do not tell me I don't provide facts. In the article I posted it's stated Arnie is meeting and praising pops' buddies whether you like it or not. And the resentment over nazism is too insignificant for ya? Bite me.

I don't particularly like Schwarzenegger. I won't be voting for him.

But the link that you supplied is hardly basis, except perhaps for those still in high school, for labelling the man an 'unrepentant nazi'.

You provide facts that do not justify your emotional, histrionic conclusions.

Grow up

and readiness to insult a fellow DU-er to defend The Schwartzenegger honor are distturbing at best. Just the same as all the other posters who are comfortable with holding Davis responsible for Enron/bushco, but God forbid Arnie-s daddy be brought in. The entire hyperventilation as a reaction this story is strange.

Sorry you don't like my link. Your passion for Arnie's nazi heritage.

You're link is fine. It's your idiotic conclusions that you're attmepting to justify with it that's the problem. My passion is for logic and reason, not for foaming-at-the-mouth untenable histrionics.

and readiness to insult a fellow DU-er to defend The Schwartzenegger honor are distturbing at best.

Gee, you resent things, and now you're disturbed when someone points out that your wild speculations are unjustified by the 'evidence' you provided.

Just the same as all the other posters who are comfortable with holding Davis responsible for Enron/bushco, but God forbid Arnie-s daddy be brought in. The entire hyperventilation as a reaction this story is strange.

Yes, your responses have been most bizarre.

The conclusion from the link is that Arnold continues his father's allegiances. Like it or not, like me or not that makes all your insults irrelevant and empty.
The Davis/Enron part was refering to other posters on this thread who actually hate Davis/ love the recall.
I have no idea what moves you to post here.

Trying to live up to your handle (but not when it comes to Arnie)

It's nothing I have to 'live up to', there's no need. Perhaps I should have chosen the handle 'Assumption Exposer'. It would fit more aptly here.

The conclusion from the link is that Arnold continues his father's allegiances. Like it or not, like me or not that makes all your insults irrelevant and empty.

Bullshit. The assumption you're making about the link is that he somehow, magically, and with nothing further, continues his father's allegiances. Try posting something from a supermarket tabloid, it would be about as valid.

The Davis/Enron part was refering to other posters on this thread who actually hate Davis/ love the recall. I have no idea what moves you to post here.

I try to refute childish assumptions, foolish overinterpretation and wild unsubstantiated speculation when and wherever I can.

You're welcome.

Hey there's a guy jason in the Clark campaign that does bad things - go after him, you obviously care nothing about recall, California, democracy. You only waste time in personal attacks.Be gone already!

you obviously care nothing about recall, California, democracy

You obviously know nothing about my views, other than those that contradict your assumptions. I am a native Californian, I live here, and the recall is of quite substantial importance.

Attempting to impune the integrity or character of public figures with no real basis to do so, however, is embarassing for this website and gives the general impression that its populated by a bunch of loonies.

That will not do.

you’re gonna love this one. The site you reference, the one you take glee in reminding us that you have referenced many times, is a holocaust denial site which seems to be a personal showcase for the rants of one Bradley Smith.

This from the ADL: <During the fall semester of 1997, Bradley Smith, “director" of the self-styled "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust," (CODOH) launched a new salvo in his continuing propaganda campaign to deny the reality of the Holocaust. >

<Smith…was for almost eight years the Media Director of the "Institute for Historical Review," the world's leading clearinghouse of Holocaust denial propaganda>

<Smith describes the facts of the Holocaust as "the Holocaust-story fraud." This "fraud" is created and propagated by the "Holocaust Lobby. . . owned and run by Jews" that is out to destroy what he describes as "intellectual freedom." >

Care to reveal how much time you spend "associating" with this site?

Now go back and study Character Assassins posts, a much better source of information.

Good one, delete_bush!

IMHO because you are onto something that shows a closer connection between Arnie and Nazis and CA wants to fuck with your head. Character Assasin, cleverly says he doesn't care much about Arnie, but I wouldn't believe that.

IMHO because you are onto something that shows a closer connection between Arnie and Nazis and CA wants to fuck with your head.

Ah, I see. So, pointing out logical fallacies in an argument, not being satisifed with tenuous, peripheral associations, even after its been pointed out that the site in question has a Holocause denial background is 'fucking with someone's head'. Sure.

Character Assasin, cleverly says he doesn't care much about Arnie, but I wouldn't believe that.

Of course not. You prefer wild speculation.

.

hee, hee. You seems alot likes him from when I fought the fascisti,hee, hee. Your quote, counterpoint tactic and constant referral to "childish" posting, though it wasn't childish IMHO, seems familiar.

The conclusion from the link is that Arnold continues his father's allegiances.

Stick to that kernel of truth when you've got character assasins after you. They don't likes it when you present info of Arnie being more of Nazi symp than previously thought.

Obliviousness is beautiful, ain't it? Or did you miss the revelation above that this "smoking gun" article comes from a Holocaust denial website?

The conclusion I draw from the link is that you're relying on the rantings of some nutjob fascist to prove your point. Swell.

robbed voter does not portray Naziism in a favorable light. I've read the cite it and though Bradley Smith is probably full of it, he doesn't "deny the holocaust" only some particulars. Why he does this I don't know. What is odd is that a Bradley Smith is a researcher of the Vatican--Dulles--Nazi link that Martin Lee ("The Beast Re-awakens") cites in his work.

But the main point that robbed voter is trying to make is that Swartzy is still affiliated with Nazi's. That has been corroborated by numerous other sources lately and the info he snipped and presented does this as well. Why a "holocaust denier" would present Harlow's article makes no sense to me

why are so many supposed Democrats defending this particular Republican? It seems kind of freeper-ish...

you, like many others on this thread, are assigning motivations to folks like me that just don't stick. I don't think it's worth any Democrat's time to hint and insinuate that Arnold harbors Nazi sympathies based ONLY on the fact that his father was in the SA. I also am voting No on the Recall, Yes on Bustamante. I think Arnold's campaign is a joke and he should go back to playing cyborgs at the multiplex.

Am I defending Arnold? No
Am I covering up for Arnold? No
Am I secretly plotting to subvert the democratic process by arguing that this all is a waste of time? No

The point that has been made over and over and over again here is that any move we (Democrats) make in examining Arnold's Nazi past is a dead end and may very well backfire. I have no objection in examining his past conduct in acting like a pig around women, or any other personal conduct Arnold himself has exhibited that brings into question his fitness for office. What I do object to (or rather, warn against) is dredging up his father's sins and automatically assigning them to the son with no reason or evidence to support it. Why in the hell would we want to turn public sentiment towards this lummox (I can see Frank Luntz and his focus group now - "I thought that whole thing of calling Arnold a Nazi was insulting...") when he's doing a good enough job sinking his campaign by himself?

Your reference site: http://www.codoh.com is nothing but a holocaust revisionist site.

See http://www.codoh.com/purpose.html

"Nevertheless, I no longer believe the German State pursued a plan to kill all Jews or used homicidal "gassing chambers" for mass murder."

What a disgusting site to use for backing your cause.

who left Austria "because it was too socialist" and is "fascinated with people controling other people"?" Why is so important to so many DU-ers that Arnie be not connected with his soulmates?
Is your passion for action movies so burning? Or are there other passions at work?