Nazi history of HH

From book blog "Tatty Jackets". Doesn't give the title unfortunately. His translation of an interesting passage:

The historical development of our city could easily create the impression that Hamburg had placed her own interests over those of Germany. However, we must not overlook the fact that it was only through this political independence that the Hamburg’s inner strength of purpose, enterprising courage, tenacity in the face of set-backs, and flexibility in the conquering of new markets could develop, and could blossom among Germany’s ranks. The successful utilisation of these qualities for the city simultaneous meant service to the interests of Germany; Hamburg’s profile in the world was Germany’s vindication, Hamburg’s economy was the German economy. The fact that Hamburg, despite all her international connections and despite the various points of contact with foreign ways and customs, remained truly German at heart, is proven by the inscription on the memorial columns in Adolf Hitler Square: “40 000 sons of this city gave up their lives for you!” (p.62-3)

Has original German too. Would be nice to get a real copy and check it out.

Expelled!

Not recorded much of this controversy (or much of anything recently at the end of this semester), but this link from Richard Dawkins (courtesy PZ Myers' "Appropriate Responses to Expelled") shoots down in perfect form the supposed connection between Nazis and Darwin. Which, Nazis being one of my things, would be handy to have around for future needs.

Though in a way, all one might have to say on the subject is that in all of Mein Kampf.... Hitler never mentioned Darwin. Some influence.

Godwin?

Phoenix Woman at Firedoglake notes that the media has once again hauled out the "what will we tell the children" meme for the Spitzer case. But of course they never do this for Foley, Craig, Vittner, etc. Bonus Godwin's Law flouting: pic of Nazi Family Values.

"Sichert die Volksgemeinschaft!" Jawohl!!

note to self

In the context of this previously linked post on Pantload's souces, Dave includes a quote from Griffin's Nature of Fascism that I'll like to quote in my intro. It's on the point of not falling into the trap of taking their words at face value, and looking instead at their actions:

[A]pproaching fascism primarily in terms of political theory and the history of ideas is misleading because it detracts attention from concrete events which constitute the real 'nature of fascism' and moreover euphemizes the immense human suffering caused when nebulous fascist ideals and policies became translated into gruesome political realities.

Yep.

photo juxtapositions

Cool "convergence contest" at McSweeney's -- lining up two photos from different historical eras, which makes an implicit link between the two. The best one, and saddest, is the anti-Nazi poster describing the Lidice massacre ("this is Nazi brutality") with one of the Abu Ghraib hooded inmates.

There's also this cool one of a brain and a subdivision. A lot of these are convergences of natural and man-made forms. How man mimics nature without even realizing it. These might also be good for an early lecture about building and man's alteration of environment.

UPDATE: I just can't stop with these! Contrast Goya's Saturn devouring one of his sons with a picture of Bush kissing a baby in the same position. Hilarious!

Another one converging a row of Iraqi prisoners being led away for questioning with Singer Sergeant's Gassed, one of my favorite paintings of all time. Could use this in the last lecture, as students will have seen Gassed in the WWI lecture.

Time magazine's deliberate convergence of their "X-ed out Hitler" cover of May 1945 with al-Zawahiri... As the editor notes:

The design of the more recent cover raises some interesting sets of questions:

1. Are they really comparing al-Zarqawi to Hitler? As nasty a character as he was, it seems like a bit of an overstatement to compare his death in terms of significance to that of the architect of the Holocaust, the man who sent the whole world to war. Plus, the death of Hitler, announced by the first cover, brought about Germany's surrender and the end of the war in Europe. Is Time, therefore, declaring the war in Iraq over, and victory for al-Zarqawi's opponents? Doesn't seem likely.

2. For whom was the second cover designed? Hardly anyone alive today would remember the Hitler cover, so the "historical resonance" factor is virtually nil. Only unusually dedicated followers of Time covers (Timeheads?) or Time employees—and even in that case only Time employees who have poked around the archives or who have made studies of past cover designs for their own work—would "get" this reference.

So it seems like an internal wink, then: a deliberate convergence by Time magazine for Time magazine. They would have had to wait this long, as anyone who remembered the first cover would also be pretty outraged at the comparison. It will be interesting to see who Time decides to X out 60 years from now.

This one comparing devastation in Beruit and Warsaw could be good for the lecture on cyclical theory of history (as could all of these - would be a good addition).

The works of man mirror nature -- Swedish logging site looks like a tree itself, from the air.

Trippy.