Talk:Ferdinand Porsche/Archives/2016

Porsche-Tito link

Some sources mention Josip Broz as mechanic of Porsche garage. Is it true, and may it must be mentioned?Ходок (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting if it's true. Though maybe it belongs in the entry about Tito, rather than the entry about Porsche. It does, in the first instance, tell us something new (well, it's new to me) about what Tito did much more than it tells us what Porsche did.

I find the source a little hard to evaluate. Is it just someone's blog, or does it carry more authority? Maybe in Serbo-Croatian there is a more widely published source? Alas for me, I do not understand Serbo-Croatian, but you look as though maybe you do. And "?". The English language sources I can find with google look as if they are copied and translated from somewhere else, probably originally published in Serbo-Croat. Incidentally, though I cannot manage Serbo-Croat, I do understand some German. Do you think this source looks more persuasive?

Success Charles01 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Nazi images

In 1937, Ferdinand Porsche joined the Nazi Party and SS, reaching the rank of Oberführer in the latter during the war.

Porsche, being a member of NSDAP and SS-Officer, was awarded SS-Ehrenring and War Merit Cross during the WW2.

It seems that there is some disagreement as regards use of pictures complementing part about Porsche's Nazi background. I have added those since they are very fitting to the topic, and of course, also because I am appalled that until now, an article about an SS-Officer did not have a single mention of the man being a Nazi.

As alternative, I propose the ehrenring and war merit cross instead of swastika and SS. However I must insist that this part of the article, added by me, shall be accompanied by fitting pictures. As long as we don't have a CC picture of Porsche in SS uniform (with all the skulls and other stuff), these are the best options of pictures accompanying the text available.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that an article on somebody who was a prominent contributor to the German war effort should give proper weight to his involvement with the Nazi party. I just felt that the images added nothing and were no more than cheap sensationalism. Imo the single image of the ring would be sufficient.TheLongTone (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

And btw you can't insist on anything. Wikipedia is consensus-driven. Talk of insisting is asserting an intention of POV-pushing & ironically given the context, symptomatic of a totalitarian mindset.TheLongTone (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Being the original contributor of the part about his Nazi past and being the original contributor of the images into the article, I do have a full right to insist on them being there, at least until a consensus is built to the contrary. As long as you are the only opposing person, it is a common courtesy not to remove content added by someone else.

In case I feel need for a diagnosis of my mindset, I shall revert to you. Until then, please keep your clinical opinions to yourself. Thank you. Regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the expansion of the article to cover his Nazi connections, and the photo of Hilter with the swastika flags at the VW plant opening is probably relevant. But slathering the article with even more photos of Nazi logos and symbols is excessive and sensationalistic. Per WP:TONE, Wikipedia articles should be formal and sober, not hysterical. And the Nazi logos don't tell us anything specific about Ferdinand Porsche. A photo of Ferdinand Porsche in a Nazi uniform, or meeting with Nazi officials, would be relevant (e.g [1][2][3][4][5]), but just logos and badges are not. They only serve to beat the reader over the head with the point that he was a Nazi. It isn't necessary to belabor it that much. But otherwise, good work improving the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If somebody makes an ill-judged edit it gets amended. that's wikipedia. Common courtesy doesn't come into it.TheLongTone (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Also known as the :BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, this solves the swastika issue. What about the alternative proposal (right)?Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I don't agree with you assessment. Being Nazi collaborator was a large part of Porsche's success. Yes, he was a genius engineer, but he could have never pulled off what he managed without the backing of the Nazi party. Even the Volkswagen would most probably be stopped due to infringement of Tatra's patents. He intentionally became the poster boy for the Nazi Party and SS in order to promote his engineering ideas. Hence it is not beating the reader over the head, it is just a small reminder of what made Porsche who he was in the end. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If you know of objective historians who share those opinions, by all means, add them to the article and cite them. But no, the other images are no better than the logos. They're sensationalistic and the POV-pushing is blatantly obvious here. This photo is much more informative, showing an actual scene from Porsche's life and illustrating his relationship with Hitler and the other Nazis. Or this one. Assuming we can work out any copyright questions; I don't know the provencnae of those photos. And there are already three photos of Porsche alongside his Nazi friends at Commons which I pointed out. Use one of those photos or import one of the others I suggested to Commons. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

As much as I respect your opinion, I just don't see what is sensational about them (let's agree to disagree on that). Taking into consideration, that Porsche was a very talented engineer who lived in 1930s and 40s Germany, moreover working on designs crucial for the Nazi party - Volkswagen (propaganda value) and the tanks (military value), it would be impossible for him not to be photographed with the top Nazi figures. That is something inevitable under the circumstances. Becoming member of NSDAP and for God's sake, the SS, that is a whole different thing. None of the pictures you proposed speaks to that (that is why I said that the most preferable would be Porsche in SS uniform, which he must have had, even though it seems he didn't wear it too often).

It is the same difference as using slaves in the factory, which would be most probably inevitable, and choosing to use SS-Men as security and later having a special VW-SS Unit. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You say he couldn't avoid being photographed with Nazis, but by the same token, could he avoid joining the Allgemeine SS or the SS mannschaft? He obviously wasn't a member of the Waffen-SS or the SS-Totenkopfverbände. And since he was never photographed in uniform, it calls into question whether he performed any SS duties at all. Perhaps it was merely an honorary title he couldn't refuse. Or perhaps he was an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazis and their most loyal troops. Either way, you'd need to cite sources specifically saying so one way or the other. What we don't do is slather Nazi logos all over an article and let the reader fill in the blanks. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This is like listening to Jan_Fischer_(politician), the 2013 Czech presidential candidate: "I joined the party only to make my life easier, but I was never really a die-hard communist".

Sir, Mr. Porsche was a Nazi and was a member of SS. There is no letting the reader fill in the blanks.

And - putting SS-membership and honorary into the same context is something I just refuse to comment on. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool your jets. Put all that is necessary about Porsche's involvement with the Nazi Party, contribution to the German industrial war effort, (as long as properly referenced): do not sensationlise the article, which ultimatly weakens your case by making the article look tawdry. And don't 'shout. And in the context honorary is the right word to use. Its an honour conferred by a bunch of criminal sociopaths, which speaks for itself.TheLongTone (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no case. I came to this article and found out that it completely lacks any information on Porsche's political background, despite him being one of the poster boys of Nazi propaganda, moreover not only a Nazi, but also SS-Man.

Being a member of an organization is a willful decision. By 1937, it was clear that Nazis were preparing a war of aggression as well as a hell on earth for all untermensch, so no one can argue "forgive him, for he did not know what he was doing" (which may be an argument if he joined the party in 1923). I shall add parts dealing with the fact that Porsche chose to use slave labor in order to be able to push the price of the VW Beetle under RM 1.000, as promised to Hitler (unfortunately I don't have the time to get this article in shape completely, also regarding the non-Nazi stuff). Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Good for you. I would imagine that this page was largely written by automobile enthusiasts working from sources written by other car enthusians, so its lack of political context is, although regrettable, understandable. (myself, I think cars themselves are a creation of the Devil).TheLongTone (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Any real car enthusiast could not omit Porsche's relation to Hans Ledwinka and the theft of Tatra's patents, which were essential for effective cooling of an engine placed in the rear (Tatra invested the kind of effort and money into this research which a Volskauto start-up - even with NSDAP backing - could hardly put together); even the most high end water cooled front engine cars of the era, such as Rolls Royce, could not cope with the new German highways and would overheat with a frequency that could bring the owners to the edge of madness (especially considering the cars' cost). Therefore I suppose this was written mostly by Porsche enthusiasts, rather then by car enthusiasts in general.

I still don't see why a picture of an ehrenring, one of the rarest SS decorations, would do any bad to the article (while its descriptive effect would surely help the article).

I got to this article after finding out that Porsche AG removed its cars from Porsche's birth house/museum after a section dealing with Porsche's Nazi/SS background was added there. As politically correct about Nazism Germans in generally are today (I lived there for a year), it shows that many, especially in the Porsche management, still can't cope with this past. Removing any direct pictorial connection of Porsche to Nazism (sorry, picture of Hitler+Swastika+VW Bug ain't it - that was simply 1930/40s Germany) seems to fall into the same category, at least for me. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the ring, but the double image is overkill and the cross is not a very interesting image. This article actually needs restructuring: there is no section at all on what Porsche did in the war. I am not interested in armoured vehicles and so have nothing on them in my library (don't have anything on cars either), so can't really contribute much.TheLongTone (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)