This is in response to Alexandra Starr's piece on why Vienna in The
American Scholar(Winter 2008).
Starr's argues that Viennese culture represented the golden age of
modern Europe but that it faded not only because of Nazism and WWII
but because Austrians have opted for provincialism in the post-war
era. Like so many other writers, she suggests that today's Austrians
are closet anti-semites who are secretly glad that Austria is now
mostly Jew-free and who are unwilling to honestly reflect upon their
past.
She argues that Jews were at the center of cultural flowering in early
20th century Vienna and that Jewish accomplishments validate the
advantages of multi-culturalism and inclusiveness.
So, if Austrians want to at the forefront of cultural advancement
again, they need to break out of their current 'cultural isolation'
and 'xenophobia'.
We can all agree that pre-war Austria was a special time/place in
European cultural history in which Jews played an essential role. But,
Starr's analysis is deeply flawed on many levels.
She idealizes Fin-de-Siecle Vienna to an almost naive degree, failing
to understand that much of the cultural flowering was the product of
contradictions and tensions between old and new, between Jew and
gentile, between various natioanlities, between privilege and
radicalism, etc. As most of Europe today no longer has such
contradictions--which also led to the rise of communism and fascism--,
the relative staid cultural climate of today's London, Paris, Berlin,
or Vienna is not necessarily a bad thing. Generally, a stable and
content person is less likely to feel creative than an impassioned
visionary.
One could argue that the greatness of German cultural achievement in
the 19th century was fueled by the stormy, violent, and romantic
passions raging in the Teutonic hearts. And, surely we miss the
Beethovens and Wagners. But, the other side of Germanic passion was
Hitler. Since WWII, Germany hasn't produced Beethovens and Wagners.
But, it hasn't produced Hitlers either. So, we should be careful when
we wax romantic about the Fin-de-Siecle Vienna. There was much that
was brilliant, original, and genius. But, there was much that was
nihilistic, dark, subversive, and destructive. Such chaos and
confusion were likely to pave the way for radicals and charlatans. One
of the great lesson of pre-WWII Viennese culture is that intellectuals
should never confuse their bohemian or cafe circle for the real
world. As brilliant as many of these people were, they were fools
blind to what was REALLY happening around them. This doesn't mean
that they were guilty of WWI, the rise of Nazism, or WWII, but they
were responsible for their own delusions and obsessions which led to
either inaction or stupid action. In other words, Seinfeld and Larry
David, had they been Viennese Jews, could have cracked all the
brilliant jokes they wanted. They would have completely missed out
what was really happening around them. To be sure, some Viennese
intellectuals knew what was up and read the signs correctly. But, they
naively thought they would be immune from reality by leading
privileged lives of endless chatter in cafes. Brilliant, yes. Wise,
no.
Some Considerations:
1. Viennese cosmopolitanism was based on Austrian imperialism and
Jewish privilege. It was not an open or egalitarian policy of
diversity at work but a situation where non-Austrians had no choice
but to remain in the empire. The breakup of the empire was as
inevitable as the eventual breakup of the Ottoman and Soviet empires.
Following Starr's logic, we might as well argue that Ottomans were
open-minded in their centuries-old rule over the Greeks and
Armenians. Multi-cultural trade and discourse in the Ottoman empire
were achieved thru the force of Ottoman guns and sabres. Similarly,
the so-called cosmopolitianism of Austro-Hungarian empire was forced
on the people. The only people who enjoyed cosmopolitanism as a
lifestyle were privileged aristocratic and bourgeois cl***** among
whom rich Jews were prominent.
The fact is most Serbs, Croats, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, and
others were not given a choice. They wanted out of the empire and
aspired to national independence but were held in check by Austrian
cannons and bayonets often funded with Jewish money. Jews played an
im****tant role in financing Austrian imperial power which repressed
the aspirations of various ethnic groups. There was a reason for this
strange alliance between Austrian authorities and the Jews. It was not
a matter of mutual trust but common interest. Austrians wanted to
maintain their imperial hold over vast territories and many peoples.
And, Jews, whose numbers were smaller than other groups and who had no
blood-and-soil claim on any of the territory in the Empire, feared the
rise of nationalisms which would lead to the break up of the empire
which would be bad for Jewish economic interests and security. In an
empire of many peoples, the various gentile groups would distrust one
another too much to unite against the Jew. If the empire broke up,
dispersed Jews would have to face a united national group in each of
the newly created nations. It would be Hungarians vs Jews, Czechs vs
Jews, Serbs vs Jews, Croats vs Jews, Austrians vs Jews. So, Jewish
cosmopolitanism in the Austrian empire was largely self-serving and
was maintained by the bayonets of the Austrians which Jews eagerly
funded to keep the empire viable.
If Austrians eventually grew 'xenophobic', it was in response to the
nationalisms against it within the empire. Similarly, German
nationalism grew partly in response to growing nationalisms
elsewhere. With the demise of the Austrian empire, German minorities
in non-German lands came under harassment and discrimination(like the
Jews). These minorities had been living in peace for generations in
foreign lands. Many of them had played middlemen roles just like the
Jews, and it was in their interest that the empire survive and various
nationalisms be kept in check. But, when various Slavic nationalisms
tore apart the Austrian-Hungarian empire, German nationalism also grew
in response to it(and many Jews responded to these nationalisms by
embracing communism thru which Jews could again be 'invisible'). Of
course, one could justify Slavic nationalisms as a response to
Austrian(a form of Germanic) imperialism, and we can pass blame all
around.
But, it was NOT simply a matter of Austrians one day deciding to stop
being cosmopolitan and choosing to xenophobically cut themselves off
from other parts of Central and Eastern Europe. The reason why
Austrians eagerly embraced unity with Germany during the Nazi era was
partly in response to the hostile anti-Germanisms of the newly created
Slavic nations. The once mighty Austrians felt reduced and small in
the aftermath of WWI. They felt rejected by the Slavs, and so they
naturally felt their real place was with the Germans. Austrians for
the most part didn't care for Nazi ideology; they cared for the
renewed hope of Germanic revival. (Similarly, with the breakup of
Yugoslavia and independence of Kosovo, many Serbs are gravitating
toward Russia, a repetition of what happened on the eve of WWI).
Austria today occupies a small piece of land. They are not invading
other peoples or illegally crossing into other nations. They are
content with their small territory and want to live in peace with the
rest of the world. Isn't this good? Isn't this ideal? Should
Austrians conquer its neighbors again in the name of resurrecting
cosmopolitanism? Indeed, there would have been no WWI and WWII had
there been no legacy of Austrian and Germanic empire building in the
first place. It was precisely the cosmopolitian imperialism of the
Austians which precipitated WWI. The impassioned Serbian didn't kill
the Archduke for the hell of it.
Today, Austria leaves other nations alone and vice versa. So, what's
the problem? It's not even occupying small territories of its
neighbors like Israel is doing in the West Bank. Yet, Starr finds
much that's wrong with Austrians--when the neighboring nations have no
complaints whatsoever. Serbians, Hungarians, Czechs, and Croats
complained about Austrian power during the age of so-called
cosmpolitanism, not today.
Also, if a nation must be open to the outside world, Austria is open
in the best way. As part of EU, it brings in tourists, workers,
academics, artists, and intellectuals from all over Europe and other
parts of the world. Austrians just don't want hordes of unskilled
people coming from failed states. But, why should any nation welcome
an endless stream of unskilled poor from failed nations? Would Israel
welcome hordes of poor Muslims and Africans? If Africans and Muslims
have problems in their own countries, they should stay and fix their
own problems--like Austrians and Israelis fix their own problems at
home. Why should nations like Austria pay the price of taking in and
taking care of people from failed nations--where the population keeps
growing by leaps and bounds every year. Is it the fault of Europeans
that 50% of people in the Arab world are under the age of 25? It
seems to me that Muslims should have fewer babies and do more to
develop their economies. Yet, Muslims do the opposite, yet Starr's
argument suggests that Europe should open its borders to endless
streams of (illegal)immigration from the Middle East and Africa. The
populations in those places doubles every 30 yrs or so while their
economies remain stagnant. So, is Europe to take in more and more
unskilled illegals? I thought Africans and Arabs kicked out the
European imperialists who returned to Europe. Africans and Arabs have
long been free to develop their own nations and economies but have
failed at it. So, Europeans have to take in endless number of Africans
and Muslims--who often don't try to assimilate in any meaningful way
and keep having more and more babies who grow up to live on the
welfare dole?
Anyway, if Austria today isn't the center of culture it had once been,
it has nothing to do with Austrian political and cultural policy than
the fact that there are other exciting, richer, and op****tune places.
Vienna had once been a urban and cultural center of a vast empire.
That empire is no more, so at most Vienna can only be the center of
Austrian culture. Also, places like New York have far more cash, far
more hype, far more glitz, far more op****tunities. So, it's not hard
to understand why Vienna has lost its international standing. It had
once been at the center of an international empire at a time when
United States was still mostly an agricultural nation without cultural
confidence and when the non-white world was either trapped in
feudalism or under imperialist domination. The im****tance of a city
is roughly pro****tional to the im****tance of the larger geographical
entity surrounding it. So, Rome was reached it peak during the height
of the Roman empire. Today, it's just the capital of Italy. And,
Istanbul today is only a city of Turkey, not of the vast Ottoman
empire. So, the cultural decline of Vienna is not due to the failings
of Austrian people but to the inevitable product of political
developments that greatly dimished Austria's place in the world. I'll
wager that your average Austrian today is far more liberal,
cosmpolitan, tolerant, and open-minded than your average Austrian in
the late 19th or early 20th century. Yet, why isn't Austria as
culturally im****tant as it once had been? Because it's simply not the
im****tant country--indeed an empire--it had once been.
But, same could be said of Germans. Surely, Germans since WWII have
been liberal, open-minded, and tolerant--far more so than ever before.
Yet, why is the golden age of German culture in the 18th and 19th
century when Germans had been war-mongering, militaristic,
nationalistic, etc? Similarly, why did politically less mature
Italians and Germans create better music than the far more advanced,
liberal, and progressive Anglos? Where is the Anglo equivalent of
Puccini, Verdi, Wagner, Brahms, etc? Sure, there have been great
Anglo musical composers but any that ranks with the best Germans and
Italians? Does that mean Germans and Italians ought to reject modern
liberalism to create better art and produce greater philosophers--like
Nietzsche?
If open policy automatically leads to cultural enlightenment, how come
so much of Africa is a mess. There are open borders all across Congo
and Sudan. Cultural enlightenment? Arizona takes in tons of Mexicans.
Is Arizona a cultural center of America? ****tugal takes in Africans.
Is that the center of European culture? Romania has many gypsies.
Cultural greatness?
3. To understand the decline of Viennese culture, we must take into
account the inevitable fading of modernism. Cultural excitement is
dead not only in Vienna but everywhere because modernism burned out.
Paris has lot more immigrants--Arab and AFrican--yet what great
cultural brew is stewing in Paris? Most immigrant kids are into
French gangsta rap.
Viennese today look back to the golden age but so does everyone else.
United States is a very open nation but has there been any outstanding
painters, sculptors, etc in the past 20 yrs who've really stirred up
great excitement and universal admiration. Sure, we still have art
world fa****ons and hype. But, anyone as exciting or im****tant as
Pollock or Wyeth? Excitement of 'newness' is dead. Greenwich
Village, like Vienna, is essentially a tourist spot harking back to
the past. It is ethnically more diverse now than ever. But, where is
the cultural ferment on the order of bebop, folk music, beat poets,
etc?
The New is now an old concept. We are in post-post-modern world. Even
if
Austrians took in 5 million foreigners they wouldn't be able to
reignite new cultural sparks comparable to what happened in the Golden
age.
Periods come and go. Consider Japan's golden age of cinema or Italy's
golden age of cinema. Neither required great infusions of foreigners.
Indeed, one can absorb foreign ideas or influences without allowing
foreigners. You don't need to im****t Americans into china to im****t
American ideas and values. This is what Japanese did in cinema. Why
did Japanese cinema fade? Many factors. Foreigners do not necessarily
lead to cultural flowering.
Many mono-racial nations have achieved greatness while many
multiracial nations have produced little. Racially diverse Bolivia
and Ecuador are not cultural centers of the world.
4. The issue of Jews. Jews were really the key for the flowering of
Viennese culture, not diversity perse. Austria flowered not because
of openness but mainly because of Jews. Had Austria been even more
diverse but without jews, much of the flowering would not have
happened. Similarly, US dominance in world s****ts such as basketball
is not due to diversity perse but because of blacks. If US were more
diverse with more people from different parts of the world but had no
blacks, American dominance in track and basketball would fade away.
Indeed, great basketball teams are not known for their diversity but
their monoracial blackness. Similary, the success of the Manhattan
project didn't rely so much on diversity as on Jewish scientists.
Suppose the US government had deemed that the Manhattan scientists
were too heavily Jewish and decided to make it more 'fair' by removing
many Jews and replacing them with less intelligent gentile scientists.
Would this infusion of diversity have made the project advance
faster? Would a basketball team increase its chances of winning by
removing blacks and replacing them with Mexican-Americans, Vietnamese-
Americans, and Hindu-Americans? The team would certainly be more
diverse but it wouldn't necessarily be better; it will be much the
worse. To be sure, having diverse peoples in a nation means there are
many more different talents to choose from. It's because America has
both many blacks and good number of Jews that US dominates in s****ts
and in science/technology. Computer technology is largely dominated by
Jews at the cutting edge. But, this still doesn't mean that diversity
itself necessarily makes for a better society. Because blacks are
physically stronger racially, they win in s****ts but they're also
likely to bully other races thru crime and other forms of rough
behavior. Because Jews are smarter, they are likely to amass huge
fortunes and power which are used--and abused--to favor Jewish
interests. Suppose Muslim- or Arab-Americans were smarter than Jews
and gained the kind of power and influence that Jews now have in the
US. We'd have a very different mideast foreign policy because the
media and academia would be in the hands of Arab- or Muslims-
Americans.
Also, it's misleading to think of Jews as being synonymous with
cosmopolitanism.
Why did Jews exist as an ethnic/religious group for thousands of
years? Xenophobia. Tribalism. Etc. So, those can be virtues too. Had
Jews been cosmopolitan for 1000s of yrs, they would have vanished as a
distinct group and culture. Had Jews gone totally cosmpolitian in 1000
A.D., there would have been no Jewish culture playing a crucial role
in Vienna in the late 19th century/early 20th century; indeed, Jews
probably would have all vanished as a distinct people.
If Jews wanna maintain their identity, why shouldn't Austrians have
this right too? Would Starr argue that Israel needs to take in more
Muslims and others for it to grow and evolve culturally? Also, keep
in mind that Jews throughout much of their existence were as anti-
goyite as goyim were anti-Jewish.
Now, why were Jews so im****tant to Viennese and European culture?
Jews are smarter and they have an intellectual culture. They have been
successful in business and could fund much of the arts. So, Jewish
power wasn't always benign or harmless.
Jewish elite often sided with Austrian imperialists to keep the
oppressed nationalities down.
Under the cover of cosmopolitanism, Jews could not only enjoy cultural
privilege and experimentation but could pit one set of goyim against
the other. Jews feared the rise of nationalism--and the ensuing
breakup of the Austrian empire--because such meant Jews being pitted
against individual national groups.
Also, keep in mind that Jewish business interests were far-flung in
the empire. If the empire dissolved and were divided into nations,
Jewish wealth would also be divided up among various nations and
possibly appropriated by fervently nationalistic goyim.
So, Jewish role in Austrian cosmopolitanism was as mercenary and
shrewd as idealistic. Also, is it not troubling that a small minority
came to possesss that kind of power? Suppose Arabs had higher IQs
than Jews. Though only 13% of Israel, suppose Arabs owned 80% of
Israeli economy, occupied 70% of top university posts and etc. Would
Jews not be anxious? I'm all for meritocracy but surely anxieites are
natural when a minority in a nation achieves that kind of power.
A nation should reflect the will of the people, but when a minority
occupies that kind of dispro****tional power the will of the people
become distorted. Suppose American muslims or Mormon-Americans had
the kind of power that jews have today. Is that nothing to worry
about?
There is a good reason why many Americans worry about Jewish power.
Why should a people who make up only 2% of the population exert such
outrageously dispro****tionate power in the economic, political, and
cultural spheres. Again, would Jews in Israel like it if a minority--
hypothetically, chinese, greeks, muslims--had the kind of power/
influence that Jews had in Austria or Hungary.
Is Jewish power entirely meritoractic? Largely yes. But, didn't Jews
also practice tribalism, exclusionism, and etc to boost Jewish power
and influence.
Jews are no different than other groups in doing so(creating an "old
boys' network"). They're just better at it.
Jewish influence wasn't only culturally provocative but sometimes
malevalent. Jewish businesses often drove goyim businesses out of
business. Jewish radicals subverted the nation and caused great
harm. Think of what happened to Russia thanks to its Jews who brought
forth communist revolution that would kill 25 million people, 10
million of them Ukrainains. Think of Bela Kun's bloody regime in
Hungary. Think of the thankfully short-lived Red regime in Munich.
Think of Jews of Poland who collaborated with Soviet occupiers from
1939-1941. Think of the Jewish dominated NKVD who carried out
Stalin's orders.
Jews have been a mixed blessing. It could mean Walter Benjamin or it
could mean Karl Marx. It could mean Wittgenstein or it could mean
Trotsky(or Kaganovich). And think of the suffering of palestinians as
a result of Jewish incursion into Palestine.
Just as Jewish power in Austrian-Hungarian empire was made possible
under the oppressive power of Austrian imperialism, Israel was made
possible under the umbrella of British and French imperialism(and
Soviet and US backing). Jews were collaborators with imperialist
policies in Europe and Middle East. And, many people who imposed
Soviet imperialist policies in non-Russian regions were communist
Jews. If you think Nazis stole Jewish property and burned Synagogues,
what did Jews do to Russian elite properties and the grains of
Ukrainian peasants and Orthodox churches? Soviet Jews stole far more
private property from far more people than Nazis took from the Jews.
People like Armannd Hammer made his fortune by dealing with Soviet
Jews who stole tons of private property from Russians and non-
Russians people. While 10 million Ukrainian peasants starved to
death, Jewish wives of Soviet commissars wore fur coats and ate
caviar. There is no end to the list of good and great things Jews did.
But, it is a mixed record. Jews were among the great victims and the
great villains of the 20th century.
6. Most immigrants to Austria and rest of Europe today are not
intelligent nor tolerant people like some Jews. They're backward,
superstitious, semi-literate, barbaric people from the Middle East and
Africa. Their cultural level is low. Also, they come with distrust,
disdain, and even hatred of liberal western culture. In holland, they
even killed theo van gogh. In Sweden, they've created violent ghettos
of their own. They reject assimilation into infidel society. Many of
their kids are not into books or art. They love violent Hollywood
movies and gangsta rap music. They are not the future patrons of
artists like Klimt or Schiele.
The bad side of Muslim and African communities in Europe today reflect
the bad side of Jewish community in the past.
Orthodox Jews saw non-Jews as lowly, unclean, filthy goyim who was
good only to make money off(but they were not political and didn't
want to interfere with the goy order). Radical Jews were into
subversion, anarchy, communism, violence, terrorism, etc.(But they
believed in full assimiliation). Muslims have combined both negative
traits--religious orthodoxy and radical politics--and have created the
terrorist movement which is both culturally exclusive and politically
aggressive.
Today, the main threat to Jews in France comes from open immigration
that welcomed in many angry Muslims who don't want to assimilate and
have little interest in the high arts. It is a fallacy to confuse
"multiculturalism" with artistic flowering. Italy today is more
multiracial than it was in the 50s and 60s. Then how come 50s and 60s
gave us Rossellini, Fellini, Pasolini, Antonioni,Visconti, etc in
cinema while there aren't comparable figures today--when Italy is more
diverse than ever? Why did mono-racial Sweden gave us Ingmar Bergman
and Jan Troell in the 60s and 70s while multi-racial Turkey produced
no great filmmaker in the same period?
The fin-de-siecle was a special period. We just need to consider
Kafka's The Trial. (It was a period of profound changes,
contradictions, tensions, etc--truly revolutionary in the way people
saw the world and themselves). Such simply cannot be duplicated.
Even if Austria conquered its neighbors today and set up a new Austro-
Hungarian empire and invited in Jews, there is no guarantee that that
kind of cultural flowering would happen again. It was not just about
demographics but tempographics. It was a special time as well as a
special place--the convergence and confluence of different modes of
thought and systems and habits and outlooks which proved to be
creative, productive, and even dangerous. In this sense, Hitler and
anti-semites were the crucial and inseparable elements to this story.
If Jewish creativity fed on the hostility and fear of goyim, reverse
was also true.
Jewish community wasn't some oasis of humanity and sanity amidst
growing hostile forces but one of the hostile forces that just
happened to be more creative thanks to the higher intelligence and
expressive personalties of the Jews. Kafka was not a happy person nor
of a healthy mind but he was a great artist. His artistic greatness
would not have been possible without the great sense of anxiety and
even a sense of hostility. Even Starr suggests as much. Jewish
creativity was fired by alienation and hostilities by others, a sense
of separateness that grew from the surrounding xenophobia and also
that of the xenophobia of Jews themselves.
There was hostile Jewish world view and hostile anti-semitic
worldview. Both were confrontational and disdainful of others even as
they fed off the other.
So, should we bring back low-burner anti-semitism since it pushed Jew
to such creative ends? Of course not. In the long run, Austrian
imperial tensions did more damage. Its "openness" was forcibly
imposed on others and, as such, was a sham. Suppose the empire had
fallen in 1860. Suppose HItler had grown up in a Austria that was
like the one today--small, stable, homogeneous, and provincial. He
would have been more content, more secure, etc. There would have been
far less tension within the various groups in the empire.
Homogenenous Austria hasn't bothered for a long time since WWII. It
just wants to be left alone. I say Leave it Alone.
Austria let go of its empire and gave up worldly ambitions so why
should illegal immigrants force themselves into Austria and why should
intellectuals like Ms. Starr make demands greater 'openness'? Why
shouldn't illegals fix problems in their own nations?. If Arabs and
Africans managed their nations as well and as efficiently as Austrians
do theirs, the world would be a much happier place. The open borders
in Africa produce only more problems, more hatred, more distrust, more
tensions.
7. Austrians haven't fully faced up to their past, but neither have
Jews.
Many people ask, 'how can a people as advanced as Germans--and
Austrians--have committed a crime as horrible as the holocaust?' We
may ask the same of the Jews. How could a people as intelligent,
advanced as the Jews participate in the criminal enterprise of
communism that came to kill tens of millions, cause mass poverty, and
mass totalitarianism? And what about Hollywood, rap, ****, jerry
springer?
Austria learned its lesson. Austrians have been humbled. They occupy
less than .01% of world surface. They open their arms to tourists and
legal visitors from the world over. But, Starr says Austria should be
open borders to illegal immigrants in the foolish hope that Arabs and
Africans will given Austrians another golden age of cafe culture.
Maybe she needs less caffeine and more sleep.
Jewish cosmopolitanism and communism were self-serving because
European Jews could not lay claim to a piece of land to call their own
like the Hungarians, Romanians, Slovenes, Croats, etc. could. . Jews
could only be empowered by ideas or ideology since they could not
claim ancestral ties to European land. But once Jews claimed Israel
as their own, they proved to be just as provincial and territorial as
Serbian nationalists who shot the Archduke or like Karl Lueger.
Similarly, chinese are "cosmpolitan" when overseas while fiercely
nationalistic on the mainland. It is all self-serving.
Mexicans in the US claim to be for "diversity"--because more illegal
immigration means MORE Mexican power in the US. In Mexico, they are
fiercely nationalistic. In each case, people outside their natural or
national territories embrace 'cosmopolitian' ideals for protection
whereas in their own territories, they raise the flag of blood and
soil.
Austria is cosmopolitan enough today. The illegals breaking into
Austria are not. They are demograhic imperialists with no respect for
legal borders. During the age of Western imperialism, the West
conquered the globe for economic reasons. Now, the reverse process is
taking place. And, this is more dangerous as illegal immigrants come
to Europe in huge numbers and come to stay permanently and breed like
rabbits.
If Starr is not "provincial", she ought to stop being "eurocentric"
and spend time in Arabian and African nations which produce most
illegal immigrants. These nations, not Austria, need to face up to
history. They need to change their own nations, their own attitudes.
Austria learned its lesson--that imperial ambitions are dangerous and
it's not good to rule over people unwilling to be ruled. Austria does
no harm to anybody today and just wants to maintain legality of its
borders.
If Starr loves Jews so much and is so convinced that open door policy
to illegals is a great boon to arts and culture, why not press Israel
to accept any number of Arab and African illegals? Maybe Tel Aviv,
teeming with illegal Africans and Arabs, will be the Vienna of the
21st century. Well, good luck.
Did massive influx of Hutus, Ugandans, Kenyans do great cultural and
economic wonders for the Congo? If Austrian rule over its empire was
'cosmopolitan', then I guess the British were only practicing openness
in India and Africa. You see, British imperialism was worth it in
India because it produced Tagore. Such would be Starr's starry-eyed
logic.
While we should be wary of the myth that Austrians were the first
victims of Nazism, we should also be wary of the funny notion that
Jews were the main victims of communism(remember all the 'save soviet
jews' campaigns and refusenik controversy?). In truth, many Austrians
welcomed the Nazi takeover, and many Jews fervently joined in the
murderous communist enterprise. Eventually, Austria was victimized by
its ties with Nazism, and Jews eventually paid a price under communism
with the rise of Stalin. But,the fact is both Austrians and Jews
played major roles in creating the situation which would come to serve
them so badly in the end.
|
