In 1937 the Nazi regime organised two art exhibitions in Munich concurrently, separated only by a park and a few hundred metres. One was intended to hammer home to the German volk the inequity of the type of art that the führer Adolf Hitler found abhorrent, ie, anything in art that even hinted of modernity. The other representing all that Hitler found good in art was the complete antithesis of this – a paean to traditional, realistic painting and sculpture and art that conformed to classical themes and forms.
⇧ A Hitler, landscape (Source: Widewalls)
Hitler’s early experiences and his perceived emotional pattern suggest a motive of personal revenge contributing to the Nazis’ fanatical war on the modern and the avant-garde in art. As a young man Hitler dreamed of a career as an artist but a double rejection by the Vienna art academy saw those aspirations dashed. His paintings were summarily dismissed as passe by the art establishment in favour of abstract and modern styles (Burns), leaving the future Reich leader with a bitter aftertaste and a grudge①.
In Mein Kampf Hitler avers that “Cubism and Dadaism are symptoms of biological degradation threatening the German people”, Werckmeister, O. K. “Hitler the Artist.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 23, no. 2, 1997, pp. 270–297. JSTORwww.jstor.org/stable/1343984. Accessed 2 March 2021.
The purging of so-called “degenerate art”
The Degenerate Art Exhibition (Entartete Kunst) in 1937 was the culmination of a concerted campaign waged by the Nazis to root out all manifestations of avant-garde art in Germany. The first efforts by Hitler’s henchmen were a reaction to the preceding liberal and permissive Weimar era which had embraced the modern style in art and especially Expressionism. In 1933 the Nazis held their first art exhibit of the supposed “degenerate art” in Dresden. Allied to this, the systematic confiscation of modern artworks from museum across Germany took place. Hundreds of thousands of the plundered art pieces including works by modern masters were sold by the Third Reich (some of the proceeds were siphoned off into armament production)②. Much of the minor, less marketable art works were ultimately burnt.
⇧ Beckmann: ‘The Night’
The “wrong type” of art
Hitler rejected the avant-garde and modernity in part for aesthetic reasons. Hitler like many of his Nazi followers had an innate conservative aesthetic taste in art. Politics and ideology also played a part, the führer associated modernism with Jews and communism, and by extension, with democracy and pacifism. Jewish influences, Hitler held, had contaminated the classical art styles so beloved by him. At the same time he denounced what he called “cultural Bolshevism” for weakening German society. Modern art, the Nazis believed was an evil plot against the German people, a “dangerous lie” which would poison German minds. In chilling words given the Nazis’ later unbridled lethal use of eugenics Hitler stated that “anyone who paints a green sky and fields blue ought to be sterilised”.
⇧ Kokoschka: ’Portrait of a Degenerate Artist’
“Sick art” and culture as a propaganda tool
Hitler and the Nazis believed that art played a critical role in defining society’s values. Expressionism③ and the group Die Brücke (“The Bridge”) and artists like Oscar Kokoschka and Ernst Kirchner got singled out for extra repressive measures. The Nazis depicted avant-garde art as the lowest of the low—”impure and subversive”, it’s artists ‘diseased’ specimens corrupted by mental, physical and moral decay—conversely they elevated classical Greek and Roman art to a sublime place, the highest of cultural planes.
⇧ Hitler viewing the ‘Degenerates’
The Degenerate Art Exhibition
The Nazis’ 1937 exhibition was carefully stage-managed as a propaganda vehicle to mock and deride the modern art Hitler so detested. The exhibition comprised Expressionist, Dada, Cubism, Abstract (allocated its own room designated the “Insanity Room”) and New Objectivity artworks. Paintings were hung in a careless, haphazard fashion, with graffiti scrawled on the walls which defamed the artists. Actors were hired to prowl through the gallery loudly denouncing the “Modernist madness”. Adolf Ziegler, the Reich”s top arts bureaucrat and Hitler’s favourite artist, declared the displayed works “monstrosities of insanity, insolence, incompetence and degeneration”. And to ram home the degeneracy point, the vilified artworks were juxtaposed alongside paintings by the enfeebled and the disabled, by psychotic patients and the like. According to the Nazis, degenerate art was the product of Jews and Bolsheviks, but interestingly only six of the 112 artists whose work was displayed in the exhibition were Jewish. The 650 paintings, prints and sculptures included works by Grosz, Dix, Klee, Beckmann, Nolde, Chagall, Picasso, Wandinsky, Marc and Mondrian.
⇧ Führer taking in the “good art”
Exhalting in the “pure Aryan art”
To provide Germans with a favourable point of comparison, the Nazis simultaneously held the Great German Art Exhibition in the same Munich neighbourhood. This displayed ‘Ayran’ art➃, the type of art Hitler approved of. Often gargantuan in scale⑤ – statuesque blond nudes, idealised heroic and duty-bound soldiers and imagined pastorals and idyllic landscapes (reflecting Hitler’s predilection for realistic paintings of outdoor rustic settings). Characteristically the favoured Nazis’ male figures in art represented the concept of the Übermensch (an idealised ‘superman’). Hitler’s intention was that the Groß deutsche Kunstausstellung propaganda would help mobile the German people behind the Nazis’ values.
Footnote: The outcome of the dual 1937 exhibitions was not anticipated by Hitler and the Nazis: Entartete Kunst proved wildly popular, attracting more than two million visitors, whereas Groß Kunstausstellung only managed less than a third of this number. The “Degenerate Art” show was such a hit that it was toured on display throughout the German Reich after the Munich premiere closed.
☬☬☬
Postscript: German artists deemed ‘degenerate’ understandably were more at risk of persecution from the Nazis from those outside the country. Special attention was given to artists like George Grosz and Oscar Dix who were openly critical of the totalitarian regime. Grosz mocked Hitler on canvas while Dix earned the enmity of the Nazis for his excruciating depictions of the horrors of war. As one writer put it, “the Nazis labeled Dix a ‘degenerate,’ but the term is better applied to the society he depicted—cannibalizing itself and hurtling toward destruction” (Alina Cohen).
Dix’s ‘Seven Deadly Sins’ (1933)
•━ ━ ━ •━ ━ ━ •━ ━ •━ ━ ━ ━•
① Hitler’s own preference for subject matter as an artist was for painting buildings and largely unpopulated pastoral landscapes (the future “world leader” had no talent for capturing the human form)
② Hitler and the National-Socialists’ notion of modern art as being the product of entartung (degeneracy) can be traced to a Jewish Austro-Hungarian social critic Max Nordau who decried the new art and literature in 1890s Europe as being the work of diseased minds
③ the focus on Expressionism as a target for the Nazi “culture police” proved a particular problem for Joseph Goebbels. The propaganda minister had early on championed the Expressionist movement and had to backtrack swiftly on this to avoid the führer’s opprobrium
➃ Ayran art uniformly infuses a celebration of youth, optimism, power and eternal triumph
⑤ the Nazi taste for mega-scale art reached its apogee in architecture, massive structures like ‘Germania’. “Monumentality and solidity (exuding power), simplicity and timeless eternity” were the bywords of Nazi architecture
𓇬 𓇬 𓇬
Bibliography
‘Degenerate art: Why Hitler hated modernism’, (Lucy Burns), BBC News, 06-Nov-2013, www.bbc.com
‘Degenerate Art: The Attack on Modern Art in Nazi Germany, 1937’, (Jason Farago), The Guardian, 13-Mar-2014, www.theguardian.com
‘Degenerate art’, Wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org
‘Nazi architecture’, Wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org‘Why “Degenerate” Artist Otto Dix Was Accused of Plotting to Kill Hitler’, (Alina Cohen), Art Sy, 11-Feb-2019,www.artsy.net‘Art as Propaganda: The Nazi Degenerate Art Exhibit’, Facing History and Ourselves, (Video, 2017)
‘Adolf Hitler’s war against modern art’, The Canvas, (Video, 2019)
In the free-for-all to secure colonial possessions in the New World, the Swedish kingdom was slow off the mark in comparison with other European powers. France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and England, all beat Sweden to the punch in establishing footholds in the Americas. When Sweden eventually did so in the 1630s, the achievement was a modest one. One historian described the Swedish colony in North America as “the smallest, least populated and shortest-lived” of all those established by the major European powers (HA Barton).
The initial settlement (1638) was on the shores of Delaware (present-day Wilmington, DE)… later the Swedes extended their colony to portions of land in Pennsylvania and New Jersey★. The first expedition was somewhat derivative, it’s leader was in fact a Dutchman, Peter Minuit. Minuit’s main claim to fame was the purchase of Manhattan Island from the local tribes, but his dissatisfaction with the rewards afforded him by his Dutch masters led him to defect to Sweden. The Dutch colonists ensconced in the Delaware River Valley were openly hostile to the new Swedish colony which they saw as encroaching on their turf. Minuit purchased land from the Lenape Indians (the local native Americans) with the intention of growing tobacco, and a fort (Fort Christina) was built as a base to exploit the fur trade in North America.
The Swedish South Company (AKA NyaSverige-kompaniet) was responsible for making New Sweden work and the colonists made a fair fist of it in the formative days but ultimately the Swedish colony floundered due to a combination of prevailing conditions and circumstances. The untimely death by misadventure of its experienced leader Minuit was a blow to its crucial formative development. The government tried to entice Swedish and Finnish※ settlers but never managed to attracted more than a few hundred (eventually they were compelled to resort to populating it with Sweden’s criminal classes). As well as a lack of manpower, the requisite government support to make it a success was not forthcoming.
The hard-line approach of Minuit’s successor as governor Johan Printz to ruling New Sweden met with resistance and desertion from the settlers. Printz’s successor, Johan Rising, ascerbated the already frought relations with neighbouring New Netherlands by aggressively attacking them upon assuming command. This provoked a fierce and decisive retaliation from the Dutch commander Peter Stuyvesant who captured Fort Christina and drove the Swedes’ colony out in 1655, never to return.
All in all New Sweden in North America lasted a mere seventeen years. Despite this failure the colony did leave a Swedish legacy for the future United States – Nya Sverige gave North America the log cabin, an iconic emblem of pioneering America settlement. At the same time it brought the Lutheran religion to North America, to add to the growing patch-quilt of Christian faiths in the New World.
🇸🇪Postscript: Sweden’s “small e” empire In keeping with its small-scale North American colony, Sweden’s imperial reach overall across the globe remained modest. There were limited holdings in the Caribbean under the auspices of the Swedish West India Company – comprising briefly Guadeloupe (1813-14) and more substantially Saint-Barthélemy (St Bart’s) (1784-1878). The latter was the fulcrum of the Swedish slave trade in the period. In the 17th century the Swedish monarchy also held colonies in Africa known as the Swedish Gold Coast (Svenska Guldkusten) – in present-day Benin and Ghana. Like Swedish North America, Stockholm’s Gold Coast possessions were short-lived, with the Swedes levered out of the region once more by its imperial rivals from Europe.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
★ the New Jersey colony Fort Elfsborg was beset with a nematoceran plague, earning it the nickname “Mosquito Castle”
※ Finland was then part of the Kingdom of Sweden
✑✑✑✑
Referenced sources consulted:
‘America’s Forgotten Swedish Colony’s, (Evan Andrews), History, 22-Aug-2018, www.history.com
‘The Swedish Come to America’, (Thomas R. Kellogg), Founders and Patriots of America, www founders patriots.org
‘Swedish colonial empire’, New World Encyclopaedia’, www.newworldencyclopedia.org
With so many hotspots and tense border stand-offs across the world, the dispute over an obscure island in the Arctic region by two peaceful modern western democracies definitely flies under the international radar. The unlikely spot is Hans Island, a 1.3 square kilometre slab of rock situated in the middle of the Nares Strait separating Greenland from Canada’s Northeast periphery. Barren and uninhabited, devoid of natural resources, the island has been the object of claims on it by both Denmark (of which Greenland is a sovereign part) and Canada since the 1930s¹.
Initially, the League of Nations adjudged the dispute in Denmark’s favour in 1933². But given the ineffectiveness and eventually dissolution of the inaugural world body, the LoN’s ruling carried little weight.
Over the decades Denmark and Canada continued to disagree on who owns Hans Island – without either doing anything about it. Bilateral negotiations in 1973 completely sidestepped the issue of the island’s sovereignty – a maritime border with the vertical line drawn through Nares Strait conveniently left the island itself untouched, and thus still unresolved.
An assertion of sovereignty done with humourand good nature
The 1980s saw an escalation of the competing claims in a tit-for-tat exchange of flag-planting on the island. First there was the hoisting of the Canadian maple leaf (accompanied by an additional item, a trademark bottle of Canadian whisky). The Danes duly responded with their own flag and a bottle of Danish schnapps.
The issue threatened to flare-up again in 2005 when Canadian defense minister Bill Graham earned Copenhagen‘s ire with his unilateral visit of Hans Island. However common senseprevailed and both sides committed to enter into a process to resolve the matter…since then though little headway has been made towards this goal.
A proposal for Inuit authority on the ground
In 2002 academics proposed that Canada and Denmark share control of Tartupaluk (the Greenlandic nameforHans Island), with hands-on management devolving to Inuit control. So far nothing has come of this.
Postscript: A straw prize on the surface but potentially a promisinglong-term prospect?
Though never getting remotely close to a militaryconfrontation, the periodic posturing and grandstanding by Canada and Denmark reflects the desire of both governments to secure possession of Hans Island. Two material considerations seem to inform the disputants‘ commitment to the cause – the possibility of oil and gasreserves in the seabed around Hans Island and the potential of the (Nares) strait as a future international shipping route.
End-note: A third claimant to Hans Island has emerged in recent years, Russia, filing its claim throughtheorthodox UN channels
————————————————
¹ “a bizarre sliver of territory for two countries to fight over” as one observer depicted it (Bender)
² a tricky matter to adjudicate on as the island technically lies in both countries’ waters, falling within the 12 mile-territorial limit under international law
❖❖❖🇩🇰🇨🇦
Referenced websites and sources:
‘Analysis: Hans Island – and the endless dispute over its sovereignty’, (Martin Breum), High North News, 24-Oct-2018, www.highnorthnews.com
‘2 countries have been fightingover an uninhabitedisland by leavingeach other bottles of alcohol for over 3 decades’, (Jeremy Bender), Business Insider, 10-Jan-2016, www.businessinsider.com
‘Canada and Denmark Fight Over Island With Whisky and Schnapps’, (Dan Levin), New York Times, 07-Nov-2016, www.nytimes.com
‘Hans Island Case – A territorial dispute in the Arctic’, (Master Thesis), (Nikoleta Maria Hornackova), Aalborg University, May 2018, www.projekter.aau.dk
Just five weeks after the First Fleet led by Captain Arthur Phillip arrived in Port Jackson in 1788, Lieutenant Philip Gidley King was despatched to Norfolk Island 1,673 km north-east of Sydney to establish an ancillary settlement of convicts and free settlers※. The British, recognising the island’s strategic importance in the western Pacific and the need to keep it out of French hands, had a further, practical motive for colonising Norfolk Island. Captain James Cook on his 1774 Pacific voyage identified the island’s (Norfolk Island) pines and (New Zealand) flax plant as invaluable materials for the construction of masts and sails. As it turned out they weren’t, being too brittle for this purpose, although the island’s soil proved good for agriculture and farming (in the early settlement days Norfolk served as Sydney’s ”food bowl”) [Robert Macklin, Hamilton Hume, Our Greatest Explorer, (2019); ‘History’, (Norfolk Island National Park), www.parksaustralia.gov.au].
≜ Norfolk Is penal settlement, ca.1790 (Geo. Raper) (State Lib. of NSW)
From the early days of settlement the convicts made an unsuccessful attempt to depose King. In 1800 Rum Corps officer Joseph Foveaux was made commandant of Norfolk Island, and he successfully but ruthlessly suppressed a new insurrection in 1801 by United Irish prisoners. Foveaux summarily executed some of the convicts without due legal process and courted controversy for his practice of selling female prisoners to settlers. However overall he was commended by the authorities for the advancement of public works on the island under his administration [B. H. Fletcher, ‘Foveaux, Joseph (1767–1846)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/foveaux-joseph-2062/text2567, published first in hardcopy 1966, accessed online 30 December 2020].
(Image: www.lonelyplanet.com)
Abandonment and penal rebirth
Settlement on Norfolk Island went in fits and starts. In 1814 it was abandoned altogether◕ due to a combination of factors – a poor harbour made for perilous landing sites; isolation and remoteness; too costly to maintain; diminished necessity (Sydney had achieved self-sufficiency in food) [‘Looking at History’, 14-Aug-2015, wwwrichardjohnbrblogspotcom]. In 1825 the island was resettled again as a penal colony. This was the beginning of Norfolk’s darkest chapter of its history. The British determined that the reestablished penal colony would be home to the worst case prisoners. Norfolk Island’s second penitentiary has been described as a “planned hell”, with a series of convict uprisings and escape attempts a recurring feature (eg, the 1846 “Cooking Pot” rebellion resulted in its 12 leaders being executed for the murder of four minor officials [Burridge, K. (2013). Review of Mühlhäusler, Peter, and Joshua Nash, Norfolk Island: History, people, environment, language. Oceanic Linguistics, 52(2).] (see Postscript for a different perspective on the question of the penitentiary’s severity).
In the wake of the Bounty
By 1855, with transportation to New South Wales ended, there was only eleven residents left on Norfolk Island (the colony’s remaining 119 convicts had already been relocated to the draconian Van Diemen’s Land prison system). The following year the island was turned over to (194) descendants of the Pitcairn Island mutineers and their Tahitian families. Each was entitled to 50-acre grant of land on Norfolk. Some of the new settlers returned to Pitcairn within ten years but many who stayed pursued their traditional vocations of farming and whaling❂.
(Photo: Getty Images/Lonely Planet)
By the late 19th century the settlers on NI were engaged in a range of industries – forestry, cattle and the growth of export crops (lemon, passionfruit, banana). Changes in land use altered the ecosystem of Norfolk Island. The intensive agricultural use, the clearing of native land, saw the original subtropical rainforest give way to a pastoral landscape of rolling green hills encircled by rocky outcrops (‘Norfolk Island NP’).
Norfolk Island, inching towards autonomy and self-ruleAfter Australia achieved federation Norfolk Island was administered as an external territory, control alternating between the Australian Commonwealth and NSW. During WWII an Allied airfield was constructed on the island, testimony to its strategic importance in the Pacific theatre of the war. In 1979 Norfolk Island was granted limited self-government by Australia. A constant theme for Norfolk Island throughout its post-war history—perhaps even existing from the initial Australian takeover before WWI—has been the tensions and ambiguities resulting from a search for identity…the NI community is aware of the constant shadow of Australian governance over it and yet it also sensing in its distinctive Pacific Island nature a yearning for self-rule and independence (Burridge). In 2015 Canberra delivered a body blow to the autonomous aspirations of locals when, on the back of an NI economic decline due to the GFC and diminished tourism, it rescinded the Island’s self-government [‘Norfolk Island broke, set to be stripped of self rule’, (Nine News), 19-Mar-2015, www.9news.com.au].
(Image: www.mapsland.com)
Endnote: The period since the transportation of convicts to NI ended has been marked by an absence of violent crime. However early in the 21st century the tranquility was punctured by not one but two murders in the peaceful island community. In 2002 a young woman (an Australian mainlander working in NI) was murdered in mysterious circumstances. Two year after this, the NI government’s deputy chief minister was fatally shot in Kingston the NI capital…the murder had a family rather than a political motive and was not connected to the earlier homicide [New Zealand Herald, 20-Jul-2004].
≜ NI’s old and newer prisons with the iconicNorfolk Is Pines in the background (Source: www.aucklandmuseum.com)
Postscript: Norfolk Island, a “punitive hell” for incorrigibles or an overstated case? The conventional view of Norfolk Island as a penitentiary by the mid-19th century is that it “was the most notorious penal station in the English-speaking world and represented all that was bad about the convict system”⚃ (eg, convicts universally brutalised by sadistic gaolers). The colonial secretary in London directed Governor Brisbane in NSW in 1825 to send “the worst description of convicts” to Norfolk, (those) “excluded from all hope of return”. The characterisation of the NI penal colony as “hell-on-earth” is myth not fact according to historian Tim Causer who demurs from the consensus opinion. He argues that the NI inmates were not predominantly of the worst kind, not recidivists, not “doubly-convicted capital respites”, as widely stated. Using the available data Causer shows a contrary picture: over 2,400 of the convicts were first offenders who came directly from Britain and Ireland; nearly 70% sent to NI were sentenced for non-violent crimes (against property) (“‘The worst types of sub-human beings’? The myth and reality of the convicts of the Norfolk Island penal settlement, 1825-1855”, (Tim Causer), March 2011, www.researchgate.net].
__________________________________________
※ the original inhabitants of Norfolk Island were Polynesian seafarers (14th-15th century) who journeyed there from the Kermadec Islands or the North Island of New Zealand
◕ and replaced as a penal destination by Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania)
❂ roughly half of the present NI population of 1,800 are descended from Pitcairners
⚃ at the time NI penitentiary was universally synonymous with criminality and perversion, even alluded to by Charles Dickens in Hard Times. NI was widely considered equal to or worst than the barbaric penal colony at Macquarie Harbour (Tasmania)
There’s nothing like unearthing a hitherto unsuspected and improbable sounding historical connexion to give a boost to a city’s tourist industry. In the case of Liverpool, UK—the city that the Beatles, the Mop-Top “Fab Four”, launched onto centre-stage on the world’s pop culture map—that nexus may not be an altogether welcome one if it connects it to the most reviled political figure of the 20th century.
(Image: www.lonelyplanet.com)
One story that has been quietly doing the rounds of England since the early 1970s is that Adolf Hitler—long before his elevation to German führer and his failed shot at world domination in the 1930s and 40s—visited Liverpool and spent several months in the city during his formative years. The myth of Hitler’s visit has sustained itself over the years and even found favour with some Liverpudlians despite the complete paucity of proof to support any such claim.
Alois Hitler ⇧
What we do know with some certaintyAdolf’s elder half-brother Alois Hitler visits Dublin in the early 1900s where he meets a young Irish woman, Bridget Dowling. They elope to London, marry and move to the Merseyside city in search of work. Alois lives in Liverpool between 1911 and 1914. A son is born in Liverpool (William Patrick Hitler, 1911). The evidence for this primarily comes from the city census of 2011, Alois Hitler is listed on the residential register – although the register records his first name as ‘Anton’. The Hitlers live at 102 Upper Stanhope Street, Toxteth, L8 1UN (a suburb of Liverpool). One degree of separation to AH, definitely, but so far nothing that places the Nazi mass-murderer in person in the city of Liverpool.
(Source: www.dailymail.co.uk)
Adolf gets Merseyside?It is Hitler’s sister-in-law that draws the dots between Adolf in Upper Austria and the family in Liverpool. In the late Thirties, Bridget Hitler, long-parted from Alois and no longer domiciled in Liverpool, writes her (unpublished) memoirs which recounts a stay by young Aldolf with her family in the Upper Stanhope Street home⌖ (supposedly between November 1912 and April 1913). Bridget’s revelation was the first time anyone had an inkling that Hitler had ever been to Liverpool or England. There was nothing on the public record and no one else has ever corroborated Bridget’s claim [‘Adolf Hitler Liverpool links discussed again in new TV documentary’, LiverpoolEcho, 08-May-2003. www.liverpoolecho.co.uk].
Hitler’s alleged Liverpool holiday only comes to light and reaches a wider audience after historian Robert Payne discovers Bridget’s unfinished manuscript in the New York Public Library while researching his own book on Hitler in the early 1970s. The claim gets taken up by Liverpool’s daily papers…in particular editor Mike Unger runs the story hard, in 1979 he edits Bridget’s book and publishes it as The Memoirs of Bridget Hitler [‘Hitler, 23, fled to Liverpool to avoid service in Austrian army’, (JohnThomas Didymus), Digital Journal, 26-Nov-2011, www.digitaljournal.com]
Draft-dodger führer?In her memoirs Bridget explains Adolf’s reason for coming to Liverpool as an attempt to avoid being conscripted into the Austrian army (unsurprisingly Bridget’s portrayal of her brother-in-law is not a flattering one)◘. Another theory for the unexpected visit is that Hitler, a “wanna-be” artist, is on the rebound—having been rejected from art schools in Austria—and travels to Liverpool as its a city known for its artists and art schools [‘Hitler Living in Liverpool’, The History of Liverpool, www.historyofliverpool.com].
Hitler, Liverpool man-about-townLots of wild and occasional wacky tales have been told about Hitler’s time in Liverpool. People come out of the woodwork with anecdotes about supposed Merseyside encounters their great-grandparents had with the future German reichkánzler. The myths abound, Hitler is ‘remembered’ drinking at Peter Kavanagh’s Egerton Street pub and barracking for “his team” Everton at Goodisall Park, or alternately some have depicted him as a ‘Kopite’ (a fan of rival Liverpool FC); he gets banned from the Walker Art Gallery; the Liverpool ice rink at Wavertree keeps a pair of his skating boots on display, etc [‘Did Hitler ever visit Liverpool, and if so, why?’ (Notes and Queries), The Guardian, www.theguardian.com]. As Prof Frank McDonough observes, for many Liverpudlians it seems “the fiction is much more interesting” (‘Hitler Liverpool links’).
(Source: www.irishcentral.com)
Fanciful rather than factualThough the Liverpool Echo is sympathetic to Frau Hitler’s account, most serious scholars reject the claims about her brother-in-law’s Liverpool sojourn as pure fabrication, flimsily-written and without foundation. Others attribute Bridget’s motives to an opportunist scheme by her and her son to cash in on the Hitler phenomenon (see also Endnote) [‘Brigid and Willy Hitler: The Nazi dictator’s Irish family who tried to make money off his rise to power, (Rachael O’Connor), The Irish Post, 05-Sep-2019, www.irishpost.com]. Refuting Bridget’s tenuous claims that Adolf spend 1912-13 (Hitler’s so-called “lost year”) in Liverpool, Third Reich historian Ian Kershaw places Hitler instead in a Viennese men’s hostel during the same time period [‘Your Story: Adolf Hitler – did he visit Liverpool during 1912-13?’, Legacies – Liverpool, (M W Royden), www.bbc.com].
⇩ Bridget and William
Endnote: Hitler’s scouser nephewWhether or not Hitler ever made it to Liverpool, we do know that he had significant interactions with his nephew (more precisely half-nephew) in Nazi Germany. William travelled there after Hitler’s acquisition of power hoping (as his mother did before him) to exploit the family name and his connexions to his advantage in the Third Reich. The relationship between führer and scouser nephew however is a tempestuous one. William is unhappy with the cushy job Hitler arranges for him and the latter in turn becomes disaffected with his “loathsome nephew”. In the late 1930s William returns to England where he does an about-face, denouncing uncle Adolf. Next William moves to the US where, accompanied by his mother, he tours the country giving ‘insider’ lectures about his “madman uncle”. When America enters the world war William enlists in the navy and serves in the fight against Nazism. After the war mother and son change tack once again… changing their name to “Stuart-Houston” they turn their back on a life of publicity-seeking and disappear without trace into Long Island (NY) suburbia [‘Hitler’s Irish Nephew’, Dublin City Council, 19-Jun-2020, www.dublincity.ie].⇧ Hitler and his ‘renegade’ enemy nephew
PostScript: The fake Hitler jottingsThe “Hitler in Liverpool” saga is a little reminiscent of a later, much more famousdeception also purporting to shed new light on Hitler, the Hitler Diaries controversy of the early 1980s. The ‘discovery’ of hitherto unknown diaries of the führer was ultimately exposed as a hoax (perpetrated by a small-time, recidivist “con man” from East Germany)⊠, but only after West Germany’s Stern magazine and Murdoch’s The Sunday Times both got badly burned in their avaricious haste to try to capitalise big-time on the story scoop. The diary forgeries claimed a further victim in Hitler expert Prof Hugh Trevor-Roper whose reputation gets irreparably impaired by him prematurely authenticating the diaries as being the genuine Hitler article before a proper analysis of the documents is carried out.
_____________________________________________
⌖ ironically the Hitler house gets flattened in a German bombing raid during WWII
◘Bridget takes the credit in her memoirs for suggesting to Hitler that he trim his moustache to the iconic style he is famous for, and for fostering his interest in astrology
◍ the circulation of fake photos showing Adolf Hitler standing in front of well-known Liverpool landmarks are part of the myth-making
⊠ described by handwriting expert Kenneth W Rendell as “bad forgeries but a great hoax”
The background story of Thomas Pychon’s novel The Crying of Lot 49 involves a centuries-old conflict between two mail distribution companies, Thurn and Taxis and Trystero. In the novel Thurn and Taxis triumphs over its rival in the 18th century, forcing Trystero to go underground and operate incognito as a waste disposal business. Trystero (sometimes in the book ‘Tristero’) does not exist, it is a fictional creation of Pynchon, and in true Pynchon style it may not even exist in the novel…Pynchon leaves the question floating, open to speculation and interpretation throughout the novel. Thurn and Taxis on the other hand is a very real historical entity.
⍋ Pynchon’s muted horn
The Thurn-und-Taxis story usually starts with one Franz (or Francesco) von Taxis—an Italian nobleman from Bergamo near Milan—who acquires the office of postmaster-general from the Habsburg Holy Roman emperor Frederick III in 1489 (in 1504 Philip I of Spaingives the Taxis family the same right to his territory). By these royal approvals Franz von Taxis is awarded the right (along with his brother Janetto) to carry both government and private mail from its base in the Austrian Tyrol the length and breadth of the Holy Roman Empire and Spain, in what was the world’s first public access mail service [‘Thurn and Taxis postal system’, Britannica, www.britannica.com/].
⍒Franz von Taxis
Tassis antecedents
Franz von Taxis’ elevation to imperial postmaster in 1489 is not the family’s first foray into the mail distribution business, far from it in fact! Some of Franz’s Italian ancestors were in the game as far back as the late 13th century. The association appears to start with the Bergamascan Omedeo (or Amedeo) Tasso➀. This chapter of the story begins in the small city of Bergamo in the alpine region of Lombard (northern Italy). After Milan conquers Bergamo Omedeo Tasso organises his relatives into a company of couriers (Compagnia dei Corrieri) around the year 1290. His post riders (known as iBergamaschi) operates routes to three Italian city-states, to Rome and Venice from the company’s Milan base [‘Omedeo Tasso’ Wikiwand, www.wikiwand.com]. In the mid-15th century another relative, Ruggiero de Tassis, extends the mail network north to Innsbruck, Styria and Vienna, and later to Brussels. Thus, by the time the Holy Roman emperor awards the mail distribution rights for the Kayserliche Reichspost (“Imperial Post”), to the Tassos’, the family has notched up an impressive CV of service to popes (Posta papale) and the ‘merchantocracy’ of Venice.
⍒Thurn-und-Taxis crest
Tassos to Taxis
The change of the original Italian family name ‘Tasso’, sometimes rendered ‘Tassos’ or “de Tassis’, to“Thurn and Taxis”, comes about in 1650…one of the nobles in the German branch of the Tassis family, Lamoral II Claudius Franz, gets imperial permission to change the family name from the French, “de La Tour et Tassis” to the German, “Thurn und Taxis”. As the Thurn-und-Taxis business become more lucrative the family’s social standing follows a similar upward trajectory…in the 17th century they accumulate a sequence of hereditary titles– from “imperial free baron” to grafen (“imperial count”) to a ‘princely’ status in the Fürstenhaus (“first house”) [‘Thurn und Taxis’, www.thurnundtaxis.de/].
(Image: www.labrujulaverde.com)
The Taxis’ Imperial Post thrives with improvements in service and greater efficiency. Emperor Maximilian I is able to despatch correspondence via the Post from Innsbruck to his son Philipp (Fillippo) in Brussels in five days (six in winter). The creation of a series of postal stations along the route—located 35 km apart➁—improves the speed of delivery [Schobesberger, Nikolaus, et al. “European Postal Networks”, News Networks in Early Modern Europe, edited by Noah Moxham and Joad Raymond, Brill, LEIDEN; BOSTON, 2016, pp.19-63, JSTOR,www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w8h1ng.9. Accessed 10 Dec. 2020]➂. The Tassis family postal fortunes continues with succeeding holy Roman emperors…Charles (Carlos) V appointed Janetto’s son, Giovanni Batista de Tassis (Signoria di Taxis) as master of posts in 1520, recognising the necessity of an efficient, reliable method in communication in the empire continually expanding to include new acquisitions (such as the Burgundian and Spanish territories).
⍒Imperial Post, Quincentenary commemorative card (Image: Collection of Museum for Communication, Nuremberg)
Thurn-und-Taxis and Imperial Post, democratisating postal services
Before Taxis takes charge of the Imperial Post, the Habsburgs depend on courier services that are exclusive to the elites of society. Dedicated messengers service sovereigns, aristocrats, merchants and other corporate bodies like universities and monasteries, but are not available to the general public. Thurn-und-Taxis changes that pattern, being the first to carry both private and public items on its trans-empire routes (Schobesberger).
⍋ Thurn & Taxis post-roads, western Germany, 1786 (Image: www.euratlas.com)
Serving the emperor: Privilege, surveillance and censorship Generally, the Reichspost under the management of the Taxis neatly serves both it‘s own interests and that of the Habsburgs. The Taxis provide the efficient postal system required of the vast Habsburg empire. They keep the imperial confidential posts and security secrets safe and when the opportunity arise, they engage in espionage (including intercepting correspondence hostile to their masters)[Cole, Laurence. Central European History, vol.42, no.4, 2009,pp.763-766. JSTOR,www.jstor.org/stable/40600986. Accessed 10 Dec.2020]. In return, the emperor grants them various concessions in business building to a monopoly by Taxis/Imperial Post over the postal industry by forbidding competition from rival courier providers (the right of monopoly confirmed by Emperor Rudolph II in 1595)➃. Thurn-und-Taxis are also co-opted into a political role on behalf of the Habsburgs, appointed principal commissar (making them the emperor’s personal representative at Regensburg). At its peak (ca. 1700) the company employs a staff of around 20,000 (messengers, administrative workers and state representatives).
⍒T & T postal timetable, Augsburg (Germ.) (Source: www.postalmuseum.si.edu)
Defection and reconciliation
In a rare miscalculation Thurn-und-Taxis in 1742 finds themselves briefly on the wrong side—backing the Wittelsbach successor (Charles VII) to the imperial crown against the Habsburgs’ candidate—although the Taxis’ manage to patch things up with the Habsburgs after Charles’ death. Reconciliation is facilitated by Empress Maria Theresia’s recognition of what the Taxis provide,“organisational know-how and (a) communications network which left no effective competitors” (Cole).
⍒Empress Maria Theresia
Vicissitudes of war
The outbreak of wars affecting the empire is a recurring threat to Thurn-und-Taxis’ prosperity (and even its survival). The Dutch War of Independenceprompts a virtual collapse of the Taxis system (Schobesberger). The Revolutionary and Napoleonic warsresult in economic crises that Thurn-and-Taxis have to weather. Swift changes in the balance of power in Europe in the early 1800s means that the Taxis have to pull off some astute business manoeuvring between Napoleon and the Habsburgs. Thurn-und-Taxis’ Princess Therese is especially instrumental in negotiating vital port agreements with Napoleon which keeps the company business going during wartime (Cole).
End of the Keyserliche Reichspost but Thurn-and-Taxis survives sans royal imprimatur
The Napoleon-dictated Confederation of the Rhine (Rheinbund) dissolves the Holy Roman Empire in 1806 and therefore the Imperial Post➄. Thurn-und-Taxis are still able to continue operating as a private postal concern in western-central Europe. In 1810 Thurn and Taxis relocates its capital from Regensburg to Frankfurt am Main➅.
Issue No 1
In 1852 Thurn-und-Taxis (borrowing the recent English invention) introduces its own adhesive postage stamps. A minor hitch arising from this is that the company has to issue two sets of stamps in Germany, owing to the different currencies in use – the Northern Germanic states deal in silbergroshens while the Southern Germanic states deal in kreuzers [‘German States Stamps Thurn and Taxis A Brief History’, Stamp-Collecting-World, www.stamp-collecting-world.com].
Endgame and after for Thurn-und-Taxis
The shadow of an expanding Prussian military state forebode ill for the company’s future. The Thurn und Taxis’ business is past its best days and its entry into the German-Austrian Postal Association in 1850 earns it the displeasure of future chancellor Bismarck. With Prussia’s triumph in the Austro-Prussian War (1866) it’s army occupies Thurn-und-Taxis’ Frankfurt headquarters and the company is wound up in 1867 after being forced to sell all its postal contracts to the Prussian government for three million thalers.
⍋ St Emmeram Palast, Regensburg (T& T) (Photo: Pinterest)
The House of Thurn-und-Taxis is something of an anomaly among European nobility, acquiring its aristocratic standing and wealth not from land as is customary, but from a monopoly over an imperial postal service (Cole). Since its postal connexion ended, Thurn-and-Taxis finds its future financial security in brewing➆, with sidelights in the accumulation of property and land and the construction of palaces. Today Thurn-und-Taxis—and its current family head Albert, 12th Prinz of Thurn-und-Taxis, Regensburg—with its diverse business interests➇ still has a place among the richest noble houses of Europe.
Endnote: Thurn-und-Taxis, transnational mail mover
Branches of the Taxis family operate both locally and transnationally across Europe – Austria, Spain, Luxembourg, Italy, Hungary, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. While Thurn-und-Taxis are funnelling the imperial mail through its distribution networks to all points of the empire, other countries in Europe launch their own nationwide postal systems. Nikolaus Schobesberger contends that Thurn-und-Taxis ultimately was out of kilter with the prevailing trend – early modern Europe was witnessing the ascent of nation-states with strong central governments, calling for efficient national systems of relaying mail (itself an ingredient of nation-building) that could be controlled by the state…so France (from 1477) and England (from 1516) both introduced royal post services which functioned as a state monopoly (Schobesberger).
⍋ ‘Thurn & Taxis’ game
___________________________________________
➀‘Tasso’ means ‘badger” in Italian (features on the family crest)
➁by the first half of the 17th century these narrow to just 15 km
➂ the Taxis’ couriers carry a coiled horn to alert towns and change-stations of their approach, and they transport the mail which include newspapers in a felleisen, a satchel encased in iron [‘Franz von Taxis and the invention of the Post’, (Museum for Communication, Nuremberg), www.artsandculture.google.com].
➃ it never amounts to a watertight monopoly, two northern Protestant princes (Brandenburg and Prussia) are able to create their own state postal systems in the second half of the 17th century, independent of the Imperial Post (‘Taxis invention of the Post’)
➄ the last postmaster-general of the Imperial Post is Prinz Karl Alexander von Thurn-und-Taxis
➅ having originated in Italy
➆Taxis is no longer in the brewing business having sold its interests to the Munich-based Paulaner Group, but the Thurn und Taxi brand of bier is still stocked on retail liquor shelves
➇ there’s even a “Thurn and Taxis board game” for which the House no doubt receives royalties