"Adolf Hitler stole the idea for the iconic Volkswagen Beetle from a Jewish engineer and had him written out of history, a historian has sensationally claimed.
The Nazi leader has always been given credit for sketching out the early concept for the car in a meeting with car designer Ferdinand Porsche in 1935.
His idea for the Volkswagen - or 'people's car' - is seen by many as one of the only worthwhile achievements of the genocidal dictator.
But Paul Schilperoord's book, The Extraordinary Life of Josef Ganz - the Jewish engineer behind Hitler's Volkswagen, may change that forever."
MailOnline
Great pictures at the link.
26 comments:
Very interesting.
I like the odds ;)
I wonder if Mr. Ganz tried to set the record straight while he was alive, and was ignored.
I think it's highly unlikely.
No one credited Hitler with the design of the Bug; he just said what he wanted. Cf. the architectural plans for everything built in Berlin in the Third Reich. It was Speer ministering Hitler.
If someone stole any ideas for the design, it must have been Ferdinand Porsche. Come to think of it, early Porsches looked a bit like VWs.
I associate Porsches with lawyers and assholes so impugn away.
I associate Porsches with lawyers and assholes so impugn away...
I read via insta, or was it the Times... that comedians, for the most part, aren’t very nice... Seinfeld had a big Porsche collection. Maybe he was the exception.
This stuff really bugs me.
"NY Times Headline"
Hitler proven to be fraud.....Cedarford most affected.
Hitler proven to be fraud.....Cedarford most affected
Meow!
Which is worse, the Nazis stealing all the art or the present day art establishment consigning all the art that doesn't fit its nihilist agenda to the museum storage rooms, permanently?
Ricpic: expound.
Okay, this is a pet peeve of mine, Pogo, but believe me there are treasure troves of paintings by "square" painters in the modern era that have been consigned to the permanent darkness below the museums' galleries. One of the great, truly great American painters was and IS John Sloan. It's not that he didn't get recognition in his era (more or less pre-WW I to the mid 30's). Now? Now his work is out of sight. And why? Because it is sane, healthy, even god forbid happy. There are many others who just don't fit the narrative. One of the GREAT German artists, Lovis Corinth, again early 20th century but "wrong," don't ask me why according to the dictators of the art world. Barely ever shown. Get that closet ready for me Pogo, cause I'm ready for it! :^O
Spelling might be John Sloane, not sure.
Must be John French Sloan, whose work is wonderful, and NOT John Sloane, whose work is horrifying.
ndspinelli said...
"Very interesting."
Very interesting?
I'd heard it was pretty much Porsche's idea.
Besides, if he'd stolen it from anybody, it would have been from his new proctologist, Fat Fingers Feingold.
You're right about John Sloane's work being horrifying. But how many would know that? And know why? Oh well, matters not.
ricpic said...
You're right about John Sloane's work being horrifying. But how many would know that? And know why? Oh well, matters not.
It's horrible because it depicts square things: rural bucolic, children at play, homes and farms that produced an over abundance of food for the subjects of John "French" Sloan's paintings. In other words, the same old US vs. them urban bullshit.
edutcher said...
I'd heard it was pretty much Porsche's idea
I heard the same. 'Dolf didn't have it in him. He blew his artistic wad in Vienna.
chick - Look again. It's not the subject matter, it's the lifeless way it's depicted, not only formulaic but stiff. Look at the haystacks, nothing of the sun or the heat in them. And no natural disorder.
Well there's that too, but how do you explain (and are we allowed to generalize) the contempt art critics expressed for Norman Rockwell?
Now I have to defend NR? I have no problem with NR's choice of subject matter, although he's totally subservient to certain pieties. I think he's a great illustrator, not an artist. And here I'm at a loss to describe the difference between illustration and art. But like most everyone else I know the difference when I see it.
Art is subset of illustration. It is what ever a certain coterie says it is.
Back in college in Madison, Art was a window washer.
chick:
" He blew his artistic wad in Vienna."
...just a paper hanger...
ricpic:
" But like most everyone else I know the difference when I see it."
I'd say logos like the Michelin Man are illustrations. Or simple line drawing illustrations in books. But Rockwell, in my opinion was an artist.
@deborah: LOL. Marlene Dietrich was a nice touch but I saw it coming.
Post a Comment