You're forgetting that he could easily have read about it in any of a number of newspapers. It's been well documented that Germany's borders became difficult to cross.
You're forgetting that he could easily have read about it in any of a number of newspapers. It's been well documented that Germany's borders became difficult to cross.
I'm aware that he Might have read about it in the newspapers but given that this took place in the 1930s when news traveled FAR more slowly than it does now in the internet age, it would be highly unlikly that he would have read such a detailed description of border activities the very next day in Austrian papers. It would be a mistake to assume that news traveled as fast Then as it does now on the internet, given that a reporter would have had to witness the event, write up a few paragraphs about what he had seen, then telephone or telegraph what he had written to the editorial office of the paper that he worked for who who then spend a small amount of time casting around for Some confirmation of what the reporter had withessed(remember that Szilard would have been too intelligent to waste his time with sensationalist tabloids and probably spent most of his time reading reputable papers that could be counted on to publish the facts and not speculation), after which the editorial staff would take the rough article and polish it for public consumption. Once that was done the finished article would be sent to the presses where several hours would be spent setting the type(depending on the article length of course) after which several more hours when sent printing a few thousand editions to make the street venders and shops that sold the paper. There IS of course the chance that a paper could have done all this and made it for publication the next day but the detail in Szilards description implys a rather lengthy article which would have required a bit more prep work. Beyond just the practical issues in getting a well written article into a newspaper back then there was also the fact that there was a substantial portion of the population in Austria that was at Least sympathetic if not outright supportive of the Nazis and their ideology, and many of Them were in positions of influence or in postions squarely in the public eye. Many of those would either deny the excesses taking place at the border or at least claim that in most instances the measures taken by German officials were justified on the grounds of security.
I think you're overthinking this. (To put it mildly.)
Szilard did not write about this *the next day*. These are recollections published decades after the fact.
In any case, if he did learn about this from reading newspapers, those stories could also have been referring to events days (or even weeks) previously, regardless of when he read them. For that matter, one could say the same about personal communications.
"I left Germany a few days after the Reichstag fire. How quickly things move you can see from this: I took a train from Berlin to Vienna on a certain date, close to the first of April, 1933. The train was empty. The same train on the next day was over-crowded, was stopped at the frontier, the people had to get out, and everybody was interrogated by the Nazis. This just goes to show that if you want to succeed in this world you donтАЩt have to be much cleverer than other people, you just have to be one day earlier than most people. This is all that it takes.тАЭ
The above quote are Szilards actual words and no where does he mention reading about later events at the border in papers or magazines much later after the fact. Indeed, Including the line " The same train on the next day,...." so soon after mentioning his own experience at the border implies that he he intended that statement to have an urgency about it that would imply first hand knowledge as a witness, and the statment "You just have to be,...." implies that the time bewteen his crossing the border and when he became aware of what happened later was of Very short duration. Your point is correct on strictly techical grounds but it really only makes sense if Szilard spent his lifetime writing in a stark, technically correct way: in fact he was often given to using metaphor, allusion, etc even when writing such precise documents as patents that he intended to apply for. Heck the above quote was formulated entirly to give the sense of urgency and speed, which isn't something that you would do if what you were writing about included two acts that were days if not weeks apart,..
Why the heck would he require allusion to describe such an event? And why are you having such difficulty understanding that a person can write about events decades after the fact while instilling a sense of urgency in the narrative?
He could well have learned about the situation at the border the next day over a matter of weeks, whether through newspaper accounts or even personal communication. That this narrative would stick with him long after the fact should not be surprising: He's describing having narrowly escaped with his life.
You're forgetting that he could easily have read about it in any of a number of newspapers. It's been well documented that Germany's borders became difficult to cross.
I'm aware that he Might have read about it in the newspapers but given that this took place in the 1930s when news traveled FAR more slowly than it does now in the internet age, it would be highly unlikly that he would have read such a detailed description of border activities the very next day in Austrian papers. It would be a mistake to assume that news traveled as fast Then as it does now on the internet, given that a reporter would have had to witness the event, write up a few paragraphs about what he had seen, then telephone or telegraph what he had written to the editorial office of the paper that he worked for who who then spend a small amount of time casting around for Some confirmation of what the reporter had withessed(remember that Szilard would have been too intelligent to waste his time with sensationalist tabloids and probably spent most of his time reading reputable papers that could be counted on to publish the facts and not speculation), after which the editorial staff would take the rough article and polish it for public consumption. Once that was done the finished article would be sent to the presses where several hours would be spent setting the type(depending on the article length of course) after which several more hours when sent printing a few thousand editions to make the street venders and shops that sold the paper. There IS of course the chance that a paper could have done all this and made it for publication the next day but the detail in Szilards description implys a rather lengthy article which would have required a bit more prep work. Beyond just the practical issues in getting a well written article into a newspaper back then there was also the fact that there was a substantial portion of the population in Austria that was at Least sympathetic if not outright supportive of the Nazis and their ideology, and many of Them were in positions of influence or in postions squarely in the public eye. Many of those would either deny the excesses taking place at the border or at least claim that in most instances the measures taken by German officials were justified on the grounds of security.
I think you're overthinking this. (To put it mildly.)
Szilard did not write about this *the next day*. These are recollections published decades after the fact.
In any case, if he did learn about this from reading newspapers, those stories could also have been referring to events days (or even weeks) previously, regardless of when he read them. For that matter, one could say the same about personal communications.
"I left Germany a few days after the Reichstag fire. How quickly things move you can see from this: I took a train from Berlin to Vienna on a certain date, close to the first of April, 1933. The train was empty. The same train on the next day was over-crowded, was stopped at the frontier, the people had to get out, and everybody was interrogated by the Nazis. This just goes to show that if you want to succeed in this world you donтАЩt have to be much cleverer than other people, you just have to be one day earlier than most people. This is all that it takes.тАЭ
The above quote are Szilards actual words and no where does he mention reading about later events at the border in papers or magazines much later after the fact. Indeed, Including the line " The same train on the next day,...." so soon after mentioning his own experience at the border implies that he he intended that statement to have an urgency about it that would imply first hand knowledge as a witness, and the statment "You just have to be,...." implies that the time bewteen his crossing the border and when he became aware of what happened later was of Very short duration. Your point is correct on strictly techical grounds but it really only makes sense if Szilard spent his lifetime writing in a stark, technically correct way: in fact he was often given to using metaphor, allusion, etc even when writing such precise documents as patents that he intended to apply for. Heck the above quote was formulated entirly to give the sense of urgency and speed, which isn't something that you would do if what you were writing about included two acts that were days if not weeks apart,..
Why the heck would he require allusion to describe such an event? And why are you having such difficulty understanding that a person can write about events decades after the fact while instilling a sense of urgency in the narrative?
He could well have learned about the situation at the border the next day over a matter of weeks, whether through newspaper accounts or even personal communication. That this narrative would stick with him long after the fact should not be surprising: He's describing having narrowly escaped with his life.