It was recently revealed that the recently deceased Michael Jackson thought he might have “cured” Adolf Hitler of his evil ways if he’d had an hour or so alone with the Number One Nazi. That would have had to be one hell of a moonwalk. For although Jacko believed that even the Führer possessed enough goodness in his heart to be saved from his own Dark Side, most people prefer to think of him as incurably and inexorably nefarious. They would presumably use their Hour with Hitler not to dissuade him, but to dispatch him to the nether regions of the hereafter. In popular culture, Hitler is not just an example of evil, he is its epitome – as close to the devil incarnate as ever a mortal man is likely to get.
As he now almost completely overlaps with the concept of evil in the public’s eye, so Hitler once also symbolised the country he led, iron-fistedly, from hubris through hatè to nemesis (the Greek version of the warning that who lives by the sword shall die by it). The Germans, who excel at describing complex phenomena with single words, also have one for this particular period of their own history, when Shepherd and Flock were as one: Hitlerdeutschland.
But to have political leadership personalised to the extent dictators are wont to do (or unable to avoid), also means exposing the entire regime to the ridicule directed at its leader. Hitler’s temperamental rhetorical style opened his whole ideology up to parody (e.g. Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator). His personification of the Nazi regime also facilitated Allied propaganda during World War Two, as exemplified by this map.
A hand reaching out from the west is seen strangling a Germany in its pre-war borders – a shape cleverly concomitant with Hitler’s silhouette. The Weser estuary doubles as Hitler’s contorted mouth, the Schleswig region near the Danish border is his nose. His cap is captured by the winged layout of German territory in the east, with Pomerania in the north and Silesia in the south. Berlin is Hitler’s eye. Hitler’s throat, being strangled by the Allied hand, is the industrial area of the Ruhr, no doubt a reference to Allied air raids meant to cripple Nazi Germany’s capacity to wage war.
Many thanks to Ilya Vinarsky for sending in this map (found here), which unfortunately is rather low-res, rendering the writing rather illegible. Any higher-resolution images are welcome.
The mouth is more likely to be the river Weser.
Comment by fj — October 2, 2009 @ 12:25 am
“For although Jacko believed that even the Führer possessed enough goodness in his heart to be saved from his own Dark Side…”
Did Jackson really think that? He’d sing a few songs and dance and the evil would leave? It’s actually the plot to Jackson’s own “Captain EO!”
Comment by Walter — October 2, 2009 @ 12:39 am
I can’t read much – there’s “Berlin”, of course, then next to the fingers
- “Ruhrpott”,
- “??”,
- “Duisburg”,
- “Duesseldorf”
- and the one underneath might be the “ainz” of “Mainz”.
The rest seems to be missing letters (?), the word underneath “ainz” looks like
- “ösisch” (presumably from “französisch” ‘French’). This is strange, as the map seems to be English.
The words on the arm could be “??(looks like a number)?? allied army of ???”.
I’m pretty sure that the seas are “Baltic Sea” and “North Sea” respectively.
Comment by Kristin — October 2, 2009 @ 1:04 am
Rather appropriate that Bavaria is the closest to his butt…
Comment by ian in hamburg — October 2, 2009 @ 2:42 am
@fj (#1):
You are right, most likely. The Elbe must be that little squiggle right below the nose. Correcting.
Comment by strangemaps — October 2, 2009 @ 6:36 am
Interesting – as a German, I’m so familiar with the map that didn’t see the silhoutette as Hitler until I’d read the text.
Berlin had to be displaced quite a lot to serve as the eye. It’s much farther to the south in reality.
Comment by brazzy — October 2, 2009 @ 8:59 am
Do not forget: there shall be another fist knocking or punching him on the head – just as the sovjet (or east allied) forces were also marching towards Berlin. And this led to a splitted Germany.
Comment by Flo — October 2, 2009 @ 9:12 am
A man like Hitler cannot do a thing without strong support from people everywhere. I think Chaplin also portrayed him as sick in that movie, though not yet as a dangerous psychopath.
(I have it right here). Chaplin started writing the script in 1939, and he said that if he had known about the “concentration” camps, he could not have made it.
Comment by cantueso — October 2, 2009 @ 9:26 am
1. @ Kristin:
” “Ruhrpott”” – I think it’s “Ruhrort”.
2. The East Prussia is not shown as German on this picture.
3. @all:
Why do you assume that this picture was made during war? For me it looks more like it was done before 1938 (Czechoslovakia) or even before 1936 (the remilitarization of the Rhineland). It may show the Western control over Rheinland.
Comment by jakas1 — October 2, 2009 @ 10:52 am
@9:
Interesting question… When is the earliest this map could have been drawn?
I’m inclined to say that the word “Allied” (in reference to WWII) would not have been used prior to the invasion of Poland at the earliest. Further, since the “Allied Forces” are largely defined by their opposition to the Axis, I further doubt that it would have been used prior to late 1940.
?
Comment by X — October 2, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
I read Dusseldorf as “Dusseldump”.
The map could have been mid-war and use pre-war borders for Germany. I would suspect in this way they would not accept Germany’s new conquered lands.
Comment by Dimitris Hall — October 2, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
Are you sure this is a Nazi-era image? Apart from a peaked cap, there is no resemblance to Hitler: no moustache or swastika.
If it dates from the 1920s, the strangulation could be in protest at the damage to Germany by the Ruhr occupation and the drain of reparations money. What is written on the strangling arm looks like “£5,000 million xxmn of industrial”
Comment by mollymooly — October 2, 2009 @ 4:35 pm
Mollymooly (#12) has a point, while it is a personification of Germany, I don’t think it is Hitler. I can’t imagine anyone on the allied side not incorporating the obvious symbols of mustache and swastika. I do think it is probably WWII era though, and the strangling arm I believe the numbers are of troops, not money. Something like “15,000 armed…” We really need a high res version.
Comment by Gus Snarp — October 2, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
For comparison:
Here is a map of Germany, showing various boundary changes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Germanborders.svg
Comparing to the map above, the Eastern boundary is definitely to the west of Danzig, which means it looks more like Germany after the treaty of Versailles in 1919.
I would guess that East Prussia was simply skipped for the same reasons Alaska and Hawaii are often skipped from caricature maps of the U.S.
Comment by clamshell — October 2, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
The mustache is hinted at by the lines right under his “nose” (one of them probably being the Elbe river). A swastika wouldn’t really be necessary if contemporaries recognized the silhouette anyway, and such a design is difficult to find in geographical features. The military cap is also a typical feature of Hitler’s.
As for the date of the map, I think it’s from 1942 (Area Bombing Directive) or 1943 (Battle of the Ruhr), i.e. before area raids were regularly extended over the whole of Germany.
Comment by Varana — October 2, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
If Schleswig-Holstein is his nose, then this isn’t very flattering to Denmark.
More seriously, psephos.adam-carr.net has some excellent electoral maps of Weimar elections which underline the solemn fact that the industrial areas the allies bombed were full of people who never voted for Hitler. Berlin in particular, far from being Hitler’s “eye” was the premier electoral stronghold of the KPD – German Comunist Party.
Comment by Robert — October 3, 2009 @ 7:43 am
[...] History – Strangling Hitler-Germany (Strange Maps). [...]
Pingback by Hand grenade embedded in the forehead (Links) — ty.rannosaur.us — October 3, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
There is no indication that it actually is Hitler. It looks more like a generic soldier. So why does everybody assume it is Hitler?
By the way, doesn’t Czechoslovakia look like the profile of a face there? And what’s it doing? Snuggling up Hitler’s neck?
Comment by Michal Boleslav Měchura — October 3, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
Hitler’s nose looks a bit, ahem, phallic.
Peter
Comment by ironrailsironweights — October 3, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
The term “Allied” came into use almost as soon as WW II started. (It was in use in WW I as well, but the borders are clearly those of post-1919 Germany.
Oddly, the map does not reflect the German annexation of Austria or the absorption of Bohemia and Moravia after Munich.
This might date the map earlier, but the use of “Allied” seems to rule that out; I think the artist just used an older map of Europe for his outlines, and in any case the Allies did not approve of the German expansions, and after 1939 refused to acknowledge them.
The cartoon may be from the 1939-1940 “sitzkrieg” period, when the Allies hoped (rather desperately) that the strategic blockade of Germany would force Germany to terms without serious fighting. (Considering the probable human and fiscal costs of all-out war, this was an understandable feeling.) I’ve seen other cartoons from the period emphasizing the effect of blockades and embargos.
As noted, if a higher-res version was available, and we could read the writing on the arm, that would probably clarify it.
I agree that there is nothing that definitely identifies the silhouette as Hitler. But it seems enough like him at first glance, and after 1933, he would be the obvious choice for an embodiment of Germany.
I note by the way that the brim of the hat and the brows are represented by the island of Rugen.
Comment by Rich Rostrom — October 4, 2009 @ 3:16 am
After spending some time looking at the the writing on the hand, I believe the whole text may say “X5.000 allied army of invasion”.
Comment by ArCgon — October 4, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Marcus Rowland just posted about you and your book on his LJ site:
http://ffutures.livejournal.com/605189.html
As for the map, I think I’ve seen this one before in an old newsreel footage, just don’t remember when.
Comment by kedamono — October 4, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Hitler had good intentions for his people, probably, but he tried to do things in a very bad way.
Comment by EU — October 5, 2009 @ 10:32 am
@Rich Rostrom:
“in any case the Allies did not approve of the German expansions”
As far as I know, Britain recognized Anschluss after 2 weeks, and approved taking the Sudetenland by Germany even before it took place.
Comment by jakas1 — October 5, 2009 @ 11:47 am
I still think it is not so much intended to be Hitler in particular as a universal German officer.
Comment by Gus Snarp — October 5, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
Shouldn’t you have at least given a hat tip to Ian Kershaw, whose two volumes of Hitler biography are subtitled Hubris and Nemesis? Or did you think that up completely independent of Kershaw?
Comment by Mark B. — October 5, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
Hey check this out:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Vsqym5WIeTo/SremusK7vHI/AAAAAAAAAEk/o9iDKBxn6VA/s1600-h/A+GOOD+Transparency.jpg
Comment by marioscy — October 5, 2009 @ 11:50 pm
Hi,,,,,,,,,,,,Hello
Comment by Pankaj — October 6, 2009 @ 11:01 am
@ Mark B., no. 26: Who is that aimed at?
Comment by AJ — October 6, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
My guess is that this map is from 1921, that it does not symbolise Hitler, and that it is actually German.
My reasons are:
1. The city names close to the fist are “Ruhrort”, “Hamborn” (both now parts of Duisburg), “Duisburg” and “Dueseldorf”. These have been occupied by French and Belgian forces (in Germany commonly known as “allied forces”) in March 1921 as prelude to the Ruhr occupation in 1923.
2. I believe an original English map would use “Dusseldorf”, not “Duesseldorf”, and Mayence instead of Mainz.
3. The occupation of Ruhr valley cities had been seen by the Germans as stranglehold – so this maap would perfectly simbolise this.
4. The cap is not necessarily a military one, but could be a worker’s cap – lok at this propaganda poster from the Ruhr occupation: http://www.lsg.musin.de/geschichte/Material/Quellen/Plakate/Plakate%20-%20Weimar/ruhrkampf1.gif
5. The reason for these occupations were German arrears in paying preparation – or simply: money. There are some Dollar symbols (clearly above the fist and below “Duesseldorf”.
A starnge map yet it remains.
Comment by Peter — October 6, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
@ Peter, no. 30:
That would make a lot more sense – and would explain the title and the $s.
Comment by AJ — October 7, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
I’m with Peter #30 about it concerning the 1921 occupation of the Ruhrgebiet, with one minor quibble: Mainz is referred to as ‘Mainz’ in English (Mayence is French). This cartoon could still be of Anglophone (though seemingly pro-German) origin.
Comment by Incompetent — October 8, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
@ incompetent #30 (not a fitting nickname…): Thanks for the correction on Mainz.
There’s one more point for the timing of that map: Ruhrort and Hamborn which are shown as separate cities where incorporated into Duisburg in 1929.
Comment by Peter — October 8, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
Thats really interesting. You can also see the lettering and borders of Alsace and Lorraine in the map which speaks for the Ruhrkampf since they were german territory before WW1. But I think what speaks mostly against WW2 is the fact that austria is not shown as a part of germany. They whould have likely done it to complete the body of Hitler or whoever is shown.
Comment by fj — October 8, 2009 @ 8:56 pm
Oh and I think you can slightly see the former danish-german border.
Comment by fj — October 8, 2009 @ 8:58 pm
I think #30 AJ has the date right, but the cartoon is clearly anglophone. The country is labeled “Germany” (not “Deutschland”), the “Baltic Sea” is in the upper right, and the title is in English.
Perhaps the silhouetted face is some leading German personality of that period, perhaps the Reichs President, Friedrich Ebert. However Ebert had no military background, so there would be no point in putting an officer’s hat on him. It doesn’t look like Hindenburg; it might be Ludendorff, who however had no official position after 1920.
Comment by Rich Rostrom — October 9, 2009 @ 5:51 am
Given how anti-Jewish this blog has become, do you consider Hitler good or bad?
Comment by Cappy — October 10, 2009 @ 2:06 am
I dont understand why you assume that if the map is from before 1933, then it cant be Hitler.
In fact Hitler was world-wide known since 1923-4 – he was mentioned in British newspapers many times then.
Comment by jakas1 — October 12, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
Anti-Jewish? This blog? Huh?
Comment by Gus Snarp — October 12, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
#38 Jakas1: Because before 1933, it would not make any sense to represent Hitler as the face of Germany. He was not the head of state or head of government, just one of several out-of-power politicians. Before 1930, he wasn’t even a major politician; the Nazis drew less than 3% of the 1928 vote.
Comment by Rich Rostrom — October 12, 2009 @ 11:30 pm
Jackson wasn’t the first. Yoko Ono was also of the opinion that if she had been Hitler’s girlfriend, she could have straightened him out.
Comment by Joe Blaumee — October 15, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
#41 – Well if she could break up the Beatles, anything is possible.
Comment by Gus Snarp — October 15, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
Contrary to conventional view Hitler was not evil. He honestly believed that what he did was for the best of the German people.
Comment by Henry Kleiber — November 17, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
Agree with Peter – this likely seems to date from the 1920s, and the silhouette probably isn’t intended to be Hitler.
Comment by John — November 21, 2009 @ 6:24 am