[[http://cghs.dade.k12.fl.us/holocaust/jugen.jpg|this one]], this one and this one all come close. They used a lot of different Fraktur typefaces, but these examples might bring your point across. I read somewhere a short while ago that the nazi's themselves stopped using these typefaces because their origins supposedly came from jewish letters, after which they adopted the grotesk typeface for their filthy business...

Heavy theme, man.

greetings Jeffrey
infraordinaire

The Euthanasie example should do the job …

But the funny part is that the "layman" finds nothing wrong with the grotesk-like, simplified blackletter design of Tannenberg. So … if the client is not a german and communicates with non-germans, there should be no problem by using Tannenberg or Element etc. (in a light, regular weight with "non propaganda color combinations" and motives.

Well...

Care avoiding using barcodes, number combinations, blond girls, and moustaches as well... I don't really think you can really use a typeface like this just like a neutral nice looking typeface for just anything. It's charged with meaning, and if this is not taken into account, it's troublesome, to say the least.

Jeffrey
infraordinaire

Jeffrey, those are good - thanks! However something even closer to
Tannenberg (and maybe a bit more explicit) might be required...

Thomas, this "person" has enemies who will use it against "him".

hhp

Am I late?

Can't be much clearer than this one, which is part of this flickr set, where you're sure to find what you're looking for.

Jeffrey
infraordinaire

Sure seems like you've solved this one, Jeffrey. Whoa.

So you are attempting to achieve new heights of political correctness absurdity. Should we abandon all letters of the alphabet used by the Nazis too?

Ridiculous!

Cool down now...

I'm not saying they should be forbidden at all! I'm just saying you can't just just use these letters thinking they mean nothing. But I guess this is a normal procedure when choosing a typeface, and there's probably good places to use these letters as well, but you can't simply forget about the context with which, unfortunately, have become synonimous.

So, you're free to use any typeface you want, but I don't think all typefaces are alright for everything and that you can just ignore their context and history.

greetings Jeffrey
infraordinaire

And just to add a personal example to the thing mentioned above:

When once commisioned to design my schools in house art magazine, we came up with the idea of using a fraktur typeface for the title of the magazine. This, in combination with a barcode on the cover, provoked very strong reactions among the teaching staff, of which one would refuse to read this magazine and would immediately throw it in the bin if she found it anywhere near her postbox.... so I guess I've learned the hard way as well. Just comes to show that something that seemed like a little bit of thought provoking stirring up can have stronger effects than you can think of at first.

Jeffrey
infraordinaire

Wow, am I set or what! :-)
Thanks a bunch Jeffrey and Nina.

George, I'm rarely politically correct, and I've actually historically been very vocal about revalidating blackletter. But when something I care about is opening itself up to serious damage by powerful enemies I have to draw a line. Font martyrdom is not something I encourage.

hhp

I'll say it too: I don't see how anyone is being too politically correct here at all.
Jeffrey, I hear you – it is a fine line to toe. I've been too "daring" with at least one client as well with respect to using blackletter and ambiguous imagery.
But the point is doing it consciously. As long as we realize there is a line to toe, and that we juggle with fire – but we do that for a reason –, we can explain our approach vis-à-vis an audience/client/enemy, and take responsibility for our actions. But when a layman around us doesn't realize what kind of target they potentially make themselves, I believe we need to step up and help avoid damage. Not as the type police, more like… the fire brigade. But hopefully, before the fact.

An’s?

Was that correct German orthography in 1936/37?

@hrant

However something even closer to Tannenberg (and maybe a bit more explicit) might be required.

If you want to avoid, that someone feels remembered the Nazi regime, I wonder, why you are searching for a similar alternative, because those people, that know the differences, also know, that the crimes of the Nazis were not the fault of the typeface. And the others nevertheless feel remembered.

(I naturally can understand, if someone doesn’t want to use any signs, that people remember the crimes of the Nazis in the context of an advertising project, but the indignation of a sign, even the indignation of the Swastika and independent from the context, is absurd. It either is naive or mendacious. I am German, I am anti-fascist and I even like the aesthetic of Hitler’s version of the Swastika. The sign is timeless good. There should be more discussions about the Swastika or typefaces like Tannenberg in Germany.)

> why you are searching for a similar alternative

?
I'm not. I'm looking for concrete, layman-level evidence that they shouldn't be using that style of font in their particular context. In some contexts it could be fine, or even great. So essentially I agree with you, it's just that everything has limits.

Heck, I'm a big fan of jackboot Hebrew! :-)
http://vllg.com/Incubator/Kaas/mudTyper+Weights/

hhp

What a senseless discussion.
Are you victims of your political correctness? Or are you typographic professionals?

There is _no_ existing "Nazi font".
How often some guys want to establish it.

All this is nonsense.

The "Führer" prefered Antiqua, by the way...

Fraktur fonts were forbidden since 1941, 'cause Adolf Hitler himself called it "jews letters". A funny detail: Lucian Bernhard Fraktur from Lucian Bernhard, a german jew, was the headline font of Völkischer Beobachter, the nazi party's newspaper.

All these "New Gothic" fonts were developed between 1933 and 1938. They mirrored the epoche - that's all. Tannenberg is one of the most famous ones, because it was offered by D. Stempel, the largest foundry.

I wrote an article about Tannenberg some weeks ago (in german).
May be, you want (and can) read it or someone can translate it? My english is not good enough, sorry: Tannenberg

Georg
_______________________________________________
„Ich bin ein Preuße, kennt Ihr meine Farben...“

@hrant

I did not read carefully enough. Sorry.

(My first impression of "Kaas…" is, that the a and the ellipsis are a bit too dominant. But you probably did not want to talk about Kaas now.)

@Bleisetzer

The point is, that most readers are not typographic professionals. It may be a question of business in this case and not a question of aesthetics or political correctness or facts and truths.

Georg, I have most if not all the "facts". But it remains that many people have a certain perception. For example are you saying that Jeffrey is hallucinating about the strong rejection he experienced?

I'm more on your side than most anybody you'll meet. But don't expect me or anybody else to espouse your apparently extreme purism and denial of the hard reality on the ground.

Kaas: we could talk about its formal shapes, but in the context of this thread its Hebrew component would be the one to focus on.

hhp

There's a bit of cross-cultural / cross-language confusion coming up it seems. Georg, let me (us) know if you need part of the thread translated.

The problem is that people (non-typographers) often associate Nazism with Tannenberg – no matter if you (or we) think they are correct or not. So given that we have a layperson, who has enemies waiting for something to use against him, it's only common sense to recommend that he should not give them a reason to attack him – no matter if the attack would be rightful or not. I think we all agree that Blackletter Is Not Evil.

hrant, I'll not continue this discussion. I wrote my article, everyone who's interested, can read it and comment it in my blog.

How someone wrote above:
Its ridiculous to call a font "Nazi font".
And just you are... sorry, ... just you should be professional enough to avoid these preconceptions (?). It is the same if you would call the song "The End" from The Doors a "Charly Killer Song", because Coppola used it in Apocalypse Now. Yes, the US-americans killed thousands of Vietnam people, as you know. But its absolutely senseless to give any guilty to The Doors or to the song.

Georg
_______________________________________________
„Ich bin ein Preuße, kennt Ihr meine Farben...“

Ah.. sorry... I forgot to say good bye, hrant...

Bye for now.
You are how you are and I know it since years now.

Georg
_______________________________________________
„Ich bin ein Preuße, kennt Ihr meine Farben...“

"you should be professional enough to avoid these preconceptions"

Dude, are you even reading what we write?

It's about other people's preconceptions.
Non-professional people's preconceptions.
They exist, if we like them or not.

And your logic is garbled.

Yes, altaira, I do.
And I understand, what you wrote.

Just see:
You are following the political correctness by avoiding to do things non-professional people could think about it in a negative way. Anyway if its a wrong thinking or not. So you do wrong, because you are the professional. Your job is to change the wrong thinking of the non-professionals, not to overtake their wrong thinking.

Do you understand, what I mean?

Georg
_______________________________________________
„Ich bin ein Preuße, kennt Ihr meine Farben...“

Yes, Georg, I understand that. And like I said above, I have actually acted the way you specified myself. But this is a slightly different situation.

Picture this:
You're on vacation in Pamplona with a friend of yours, who knows nothing about Spain, and doesn't care either. On the day of the bull running, your young friend happily decides he'd like to go for a walk in the city, wearing his favorite red t-shirt.
You know the city. You know the bulls are racing. You've been there.
So do you warn him? Do you tell him to put on a different shirt? Do you tell him not to go out at all?
Or do you think he should proudly wear his favorite shirt and never mind the bull?

> you should be professional enough to avoid these preconceptions

I try to be professional and/or helpful enough to not try to
impose the parameters of some personal utopia on others.

hhp

I think the core of this discussion is about semiotics. And it's about confusing what is being said with how it's being said. Blackletters (or any letter for that matter) aren't evil in any way, and there is a lot of typographic history attached to them (Printing all started with them, and with it modern typography, let's not forget that) so to just connect them to the nazi regime is definately wrong... BUT the prominent use of these letters by the Nazi regime no more than 70 years ago, and it's use afterwards by right wing activists and football hooligans does make use of this kind of letter contaminated/problematic. As type professional it is very important to know the distinction between what is said and how it's said, even when other don't. And we should also use this knowledge to avoid this kind of pigeonholing. The use of certain symbols, imagery, typefaces etc carries certain messages, this can't just be ignored, that's just stupid, ESPECIALLY when you're a professional in the business of communications.

I find it really quite tiresome to have this political correctness discussion. Freedom of expression YES, but ignorance of expression, what is expressed and how it's expressed NO. If that's against peoples sense of freedom, that's a shame, but, IMO, completely unneccesary.

And sorry for the CAPS... :)

Jeffrey
infraordinaire

@altaira

Neither red nor any other color raises the aggression of bulls.

@Georg

Your job is to change the wrong thinking of the non-professionals, not to overtake their wrong thinking.

I don’t know the context, in which hrant’s client wanted to use Tannenberg, but advertising is not a classroom, in which truths and facts are taught. Often it is just the other way around. If the client offers dental health services, it would be a very bad idea, to use Tannenberg. If the client deals with noodles, he could use Tannenberg, except from the fact, that Tannenberg really does not look like pasta.

(A Tannenberg alphabet noodle soup would be funny.)

Papa Flickr thinks the picture set that Jeffrey has linked to is too hazardous for me.

Florian is that just in Germany or everywhere? The laws in different places are different as I understand it. You can rely off list if you like.

Georg, your point about the essential nature of the forms is absolutely right. I mean: bang on, 100% right. But at the same time I have to admit that it always important to consider the audience. If you genuinely believe you can assign a new a new set semantic associations with a given use - then by all means go for it. The letters deserve to be free. But I would want to be very very sure about it. My first loyalty in a case like this is not to the letters - but to the message they are meant to deliver but on a literal as well as on a connotative level.

Arno, if the "client" is [falsely] accused of ethnic
cleansing, using Tannenberg is a bad idea. Period.

hhp

Okay...

First of all I want to say sorry.
I became emotional yesterday night and it was not correct, to attac hrant - it does'nt matter if I like him or not, I want to be politely to every colleague. So, I want to say sorry.

By the way:
hrant's first example:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Tannenberg_sample.png

is a copy of a document of a protestant church in Germany from 1946 (one year after Germany lost the war). Tannenberg Linotype matrices and handletters were existing in about three of ten printer plants. I know that because we every month takeover one of these printers and buy there lead letters. So they had many other matrizes to chose, but they used Tannenberg. IF the mainstream thinking 1946 would have been to see Tannenberg as a Nazi font, they would'nt, mh? Or they would try, but US army, the winners of the war, would have forbidden it.

Another argument:
The although called "New Gothic" fonts like Tannenberg were a break with the traditional Fraktur. So to combine what whoever is thinking about Fraktur does not matter Tannenberg.

But IF its necessary to combine it, because customers do: The history of Fraktur is existing since around 500 years. 12 of it Adolf Hitler ruled Germany. He did not like Fraktur and he did not like Tannenberg either. He wanted and needed Antiqua.

What about my example with the Door's song The End. Is'nt it the same to call Tannenberg a Nazi font or to call Jim Morrison's song a Viet Killer song?

I found some magazines "Graphische Nachrichten" from 1934, where Tannenberg joined the market with some ads in Tannenberg, National and others. Are you interested to see it? So I could make some scans.

Georg
_______________________________________________
„Ich bin ein Preuße, kennt Ihr meine Farben...“

Maybe I'm stepping a bit late into this debate.
Anyway, Georg, I don't think you can state that Tannenberg simply "mirrors the epoch - that’s all".
First of all, there is the name itself : the SECOND battle of Tannenberg (August 17—September 2, 1914) was a huge victory for Germany against Russia at the beginning of World War I, and was widely perceived at the time as especially significant since it was felt to be a long-overdue revenge on the FIRST battle of Tannenberg (July 15, 1410), where the Polish armies defeated the Teutonic Knights, stopping German expansion in Eastern Europe. Thus, choosing this name for a Blackletter typeface in 1933 clearly hinted at notions of "German pride", indeed a significant part of Hitler's rhetoric. It is also telling that other examples of "Schaftstiefelgrotesk" include National and Deutchland (no explanation needed here).
Secondly, "Schaftstiefelgrotesk" are a conscious effort by German typefounders to find some kind of compromise between traditional Blackletter forms (an integral part of the Heimatstil favoured by some of the highest-ranking members of the Nazi party) and Grotesk typefaces promoted by Tschichold's New Typography and Bauhaus designers, at a time when the Nazis themselves hesitated between the two aesthetic camps (modernism was advocated by some as a style which "would best distinguish the new Germany from the old", as stated by Steven Heller in Iron Fists — Branding The 20th-Century Totalitarian State).
Finally, the rejection of Fraktur as Judenlettern (Martin Boormann's words, January 3, 1941) comes quite late in the history of the Nazi regime : up to this point, Blackletter was flaunted as the embodiment of "Germanness" by Nazi propaganda, even if Hitler himself had a personal taste for Neoclassical forms (in architecture as well as in typography).

@Florian: you need to sign in to see the photo set; I don't know if this is the case in other countries.

And just my two cents: as an Englishman living in Germany for the last two years, I've been somewhat surprised by the lingering sense of guilt and shame shared by, I would say, the majority of Germans. Especially surprising is that this has even been passed on to young people, whose parents even weren't old enough to live through WW2: some have told me they feel like their opinions on such matters are highly scrutinised. There are those who, perhaps like Georg, seek to break this cycle in their lifetime, but this is not the normal position. I've been in trouble a couple of times with some (perhaps somewhat glib) jokes, which has taught me to think a bit about the feelings I am invoking in saying such things.

One only has to look at the furor over the publication of those damned Muhammed cartoons. Yes, one might say that it was political correctness gone mad, but the fact of the matter is that the cartoonists in question became famous for all the wrong reasons. In other words, your work should be sensitive to such things if your goal is to produce work that invokes the correct responses. Of course, here comes more careful line-treading.

Hrant: I'm sure you're all set, but this page from, "Blackletter: Type and National Identity" is all you need. The second paragraph specifically mentions Tannenberg!

Another resource for Nazi propaganda posters: http://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/

@ Celeste

Yes, you are right.
Tannenberg was a great victory of General Hindenburg at the beginning of WWI. Only this victory made it possible to send the troops to the western front, where France with the help of England was attacking Germany.So it was a notation to Germany's pride, how you said it. So, what?

We know lots of Egyptienne fonts. Named Egyptienne, because Napoleon attacked England in Egypt. All european nations were imperialistic. "British Empire" says it clear and loud.

When I say Tannenberg was a result of this german epoche, I mean, that this epoche was very national. Germany lost WWI, was pressed under the Versailles contract. The people saw the again upcoming Germany with proud. So Tannenberg mirrored this feeling. The same did the fonts Gotenburg, National, Franken-Deutsch, Herman-Gotisch, Kurmark, Trump-Deutsch. Not all of them were "New Gothisch" fonts. But all of it note to be close to the major feeling of this epoche - to think national. I am sure, the foundries marketing departments tried to force it, because like it is today: They want to make profit with their products.

So: I agree with you. But I said the same before: These fonts are mirrors of the national epoche of Germany. But nothing to do with "Nazi font". The Nazi party won the internal national war and ruled Germany for 12 years. But Nazi is not the same as "national thinking" is. Berthold Brecht said, Nazism is a way to get absolutely force. I think, that's right. They were criminals, not politicians.

@ murphy.md

Yes, its correct what you say. Lots of german younger people (I am born 1955) are ashamed to be germans. I do not agree. I am proud to be a german. I am the "good german" and not the f... neo nazi groups, you can find everywhere in Germany. I do not allow them to say "I am proud to be german". Germans, who are ashamed of their country give Germany exactly to these neo nazis. I don't. I am not guitly for nothing what happened. But I have a special responsibility for today and for the future. But its my right to love my country in the same way and with the same enthusiasm a guy from France does. And its a big mistake to see all things around 1933-45 being Nazi. Germany was and is much more than 12 years of crime. So Germany was, is and can be proud on the battle of Tannenberg as an english guy on Trafalgar an american on Los Alamos.

Hu.... sry, need a cigarette... (I smoking french ones...he, heee..)

Georg
_______________________________________________
„Ich bin ein Preuße, kennt Ihr meine Farben...“

Roy, I have that wonderful book, and will certainly refer to that page as needed, but I think I need to deliver the visual punch first. Asking people to read is harder. :-) But I didn't know it was accessible online! Thank you, that's advantageous.

I hope Germans shed their shame en masse ASAP. They've bent over backwards making reparations, and it only serves to make things worse now (for example indirectly for the Palestinians). They should be proud, especially in the realm of type, where they've made the best fonts, historically and today.

However, one key to shedding the shame is not simply ignoring the reality on the ground of what some other peoples -unjustly- think of them. Same with blackletter in general and the jackboot grotesques in particular. Denial gifts your enemies with a powerful weapon against you.

hhp

Hrant, I have a book ‘Art of the Third Reich’ with posters and photos of the time (not very good quality and I would have to scan them). Does it have to be specifically Tannenberg or also similar stuff (Schaftstiefelgrotesk in general – why Grotesk btw?)?

I don't want to leave any wiggle room, so the closer to this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Tannenberg_sample.png
the better. Plus Hitler and/or a swastika. :-)
Like I said, a two-handed warhammer.

That Flickr stream probably has most of the ones in any book, but
they're small. So a hi-res scan of a really damning one would be great.

hhp

@Georg

Lots of german younger people (I am born 1955) are ashamed to be germans. I do not agree. I am proud to be a german.

I have great respect for everyone, that preserves and that develops culture like you, but I never was able to understand, how someone can be proud of his country. You can be proud of your own achievements only. Except from that I doubt, that it is true, that many Germans, which were born after the Nazi regime, are ashamed to be Germans because of the sins of their parents or grandparents. The fact, that there are Germans, which go into hysterics, when another German says in the public, that the Swastika is a highly aesthetic sign, has not to do with shame, but with either an unbelievable simple-mindedness or a dishonest political correctness. Or both. Instead of being ashamed of the sins of others or being proud of the cultural achievements of the past, it is needed to invest in education and educational justness, because we have a lot of catching-up to do there. The German educational system is too targeted with regard to career and earning money. There is a tendency to construe culture as a means to an end, as luxury, as pastime or as prestigious object in Germany.

But Nazi is not the same as “national thinking” is.

It is not the same, because the Nazis were trans- or overnationalists. And in my opinion "national thinking" is the little sister of trans- and overnationalism. Why not limit to thinking (and doing)? "National thinking" sounds like "national security" and today it ends in Iraq or Afghanistan.

@ Arno
"I never was able to understand, how someone can be proud of his country."

Well Arno... to be serious:
I never ever are able to understand, how someone, who's member of... and here are the problems beginning...

The german word "Volk" in english means sometimes folk, sometimes nation.
But there is a big difference between folk and nation.

The smallest community is the family, right?
The largest one is the folk (who organizes itsself in a nation).
Its a question of blood, is'nt it?
Jews call themselves "the chosen people". And its on the mothers to give it to the children, not the father.
So let's say: german Volk = my people.

All men of my family (from both sides, father's and mother's) were volunteers in the wars, Germany was involved. They fought for their people, not for a government. And I feel a deep solidarity to my people. Not as a question of thinking about... but as a kind of reflex. My son (18) does not join the german "Bundeswehr" (army). He wanted, because he thougt about becoming a professional commissioned officer. But I did not allow it. He would have to go to Afghanistan. And this is not a war of our people. Never ever an afghanian did my people any harm. And you know, who's war it is and you can find the answer, why this war is going on...

Back to your thesis:
I can not understand, how someone who has his own people (folk) does think in another way, I do... may be in America, because this is a melting pot without historical growing of population? I don't know.

That's all what I can explain.
To belong to a folk, to my people, is a present from I don't know, whom. And if this would not be the natural way for human beings, the most nations would not exist. So... how can it be a bad thing?

Georg
_______________________________________________
„Ich bin ein Preuße, kennt Ihr meine Farben...“

Why should we in West Germany agree to the re-union with middle of Germany in 1990, if we would not feel as "our people"? In this case they should continue DDR, the old communist Germany, Arno... yes, that is a good example :-) I was very happy when the big wall felt down in 1990, believe me. We all were...

Georg
_______________________________________________
„Ich bin ein Preuße, kennt Ihr meine Farben...“

@Georg

The genetic differences between human individuals are minimal, brother! What are you doing, when the world is attacked by the mankind?

In the very most cases it is an illusion, that people fight for their own interests or the interests of their people in wars.

It is more important to respect the nature than to bow his own nature. By the way the man is an unfinished product. Culture, civilization and rational decisions are part of the nature.

I was very happy when the big wall felt down in 1990, believe me.

I felt happy for the Eastern Germans, but not because of the re-union, but because of the downfall of a dictatorship. Except from that I don’t believe, that turbo-capitalism is a good alternative.

Interesting and very timely:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8347409.stm

hhp

@hrant

Very interesting. The Frenchmen seem to believe, that a different economic system does not necessarily end in a dictatorship. And my landsmen are willing to choose one of the positions (but 30% were not willing to vote in September).

Also interesting in this context:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/the-billion-dollar-...

@ Arno Enslin

Yes, there was a downfall of dictatorship in middle east Germany. Reason enough to be happy. So they came from one into another one. But I guess, it is more senseful to stop political discussions. I'ld lose my last positive reputations, if I'ld continue. I think, feel, believe and act in a very other way than One World, One Future, what might be a nice utopia, but helps the big money to rule the world. We'll see that within the next five years...

@ hrant
On german websites you won't find Tannenberg with swastika or nazi propaganda. Its forbidden by very strict handled law. I have some magazines of "Graphische Nachrichten" (Graphic News) from 1934—1938 with advertisments including the fonts National, Gotenburg and others, which all include swastika or Hitler propaganda. If its senseful for you, I can scan it and send it to you by email.

Georg
_______________________________________________
„Ich bin ein Preuße, kennt Ihr meine Farben...“

@Georg

A correction only – I did not meant

It is more important to respect the nature than to bow his own nature.

but

… to bow to his own nature. (In German: sich seiner Natur beugen und nicht seine Natur zu beugen.)

Back to Type.

Hrant, I wonder why you didn’t unfold some little detail on the context of the client and his project which pressed you to commence this discussion. You only screame "need to disqualify a typeface, give me Nazis, give me Hitler urgently" which is quite opposite to being sensitive – whereas sensivity in a matter like this surely is of merit. As a German who, similar to Georg Kraus, may boast with some pride for our countries heritage (in typography, to say the least ;-) I reject the attitude of nazifying anything which is just decisively German.

Would you blame the Capitalis Quadrata being inacceptable because the Romans were imperialistic?
Would you blame the Bembo for being of typical Roman-Catholic flavour with regard to millions of slaughtered native Americans during the “Christian” conquest?
Would you blame the Baskerville for being so English out of a time when the Britons forced millions of Africans into slavery?

Where are we to end up on this trail –?

I believe, there is much about context in this. Yes, the Tannenberg is a typographic celebration of German pride and self-assertion, one may call this nationalism. Nothing wrong with that in a liberal world. But I have to second the statement that this connotation is NOT to be equalled with Nazism.

The type of Schaftstiefelschrift has been in use in Germany since the 1940s *continiously*. I picked up a few examples which may illustrate that there must be more behind it than dull nazism. The first one is from a handpainted touristic map of uncertain date (est. 1940…1960, note the calligraphic delecacy). The other examples are well-known brands to be found literally everywhere.

Dear [fellow] Germans, the collective defensiveness in this thread is conspicuous. Is it really so impossible to accept that among laymen outside of Germany, Tannenberg-esque lettershapes tend to stir associations to Nazism first, with beer and noodles and good German craft possibly a distant second? The eagerness to assert a positive image is a bit tiring.

You don't have to convince anyone in here; you would need to convince everybody on the planet to erase their preconceptions. That's the point: Designers do need sensitivity, and they also need enough sensitivity (and sensibility) to see the associations "the man on the street" has – be they justified/"fair" or not! Those need to be taken into account to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether to be more daring and attempt to work towards correcting the public "image" (which doubtless seems like a more heroic and exemplary course of action); or sometimes to take a bit of extra precaution and not taunt public opinion, in cases that are more sensitive, as this one appears to be. This bull does charge at red.

… that among laymen outside of Germany, Tannenberg-esque lettershapes tend to stir associations to Nazism first

This may be so, but when I recall designs like this AC-DC-cover – surely not German, I doubt it. As I doubt that an Italian, Hungarian or American fellow, sitting befor a glass of Bitburger on summer holidays, gets nazistic association first. – context.
I didn’t want to be eager to defend something. But the average layman, being German or something else, may be less ideological biased than eager designers.
Prost!

"context."
Of course. (That's why I said case-by-case.)

Prost – I miss the Hasseröder.

> I wonder why you didn’t unfold some
> little detail on the context of the client

To protect the "client".

> Would you blame the Capitalis Quadrata being
> inacceptable because the Romans were imperialistic?

I'm not blaming a font. I'm not blaming anything.
I'm being a designer. Not a utopian propagandist.

> Would you blame the Baskerville for being so English out of
> a time when the Britons forced millions of Africans into slavery?

I might blame a minority-rights organization for using Baskerville
as bad design, possibly. Although that wouldn't be nearly as bad as
the case I'm dealing with.

So yes, context. For example a yoghurt company can probably use a
Tannenberg*, but a company that manufactures electrocution chairs
shouldn't. Helvetica would be good for them. :-)

* Unless the owner's father was Nazi big brass or something.

hhp

@ hrant
Your last comment was the final kick I needed to set up my little "Nazi font" Quizz...
If you and some others woll join it, we'll get some surprising results.
Otherwise I burn my old fashioned flagg in front of the plant, I promise.

Hasseröder alkoholfrei?
Prost.

Georg
_______________________________________________
„Ich bin ein Preuße, kennt Ihr meine Farben...“

This reminds me of the discussion regarding the use of Eric Gill's typefaces, about which some people have scruples on account of his self-alleged sexual abuse of his children. My opinion in this case is the same as it was in that: this isn't a question of political correctness but of being conscious of possible extra-typographic associations when selecting any typeface for a particular job. As I wrote re. the Gill question, I would not use any Gill typeface in e.g. material for an organisation offering support and counselling to victims of sexual abuse, simply because it would be embarassing for them and, critically, distract from the message that they would be paying me to convey, should someone draw public attention to the inappropriateness of the typeface and its associations.

The association of particular styles of blackletter with the National Socialist period in modern German history is difficult to avoid. This is not to say that there are no circumstances in which such types are appropriate, only that this association needs to be taken into account and reckoned against the client's message and goals. If, as Hrant suggests, this association would be damaging in the context that it would be used in this instance, I trust his judgement on that and sympathise with his desire to demonstrate that association and discourage the use of such a typeface in this circumstance.

I believe what a font makes a Nazi font or, like John says, a Kid Abuse font, only is a process in your head. It has nothing to do with the reality. So it would make more sense to think about how and why these associations you think in this way.

Yes, John, its the same with the Gill. But question: I bet, 99 percent of the customers (including and kid organisations) never ever heard about Eric Gill or what he did when(?). The click: kid abuse <> Gill is not in their heads, its in yours, working on their job.

Its not logic, to avoid a Gill for these jobs.
Again: The protestant church organisation in Germany used Tannenberg 1946(!) for their year report. And of course they had other Linotype matrizes. But they though Tannenberg would fit to their christian character.

Have a look to my little Typo Quizz and tell me, which were the originals and which are the fakes. I am very excited to see what you guys find out.

Georg
_______________________________________________
„Ich bin ein Preuße, kennt Ihr meine Farben...“

> ... only is a process in your head. It has nothing to do with the reality.

I'm sorry, but that's the the pot calling the kettle black.

hhp

Of course association is a process in the head, but to say that such associations have nothing to do with reality is to ignore the whole role of association in design. As you note with regard to the use of Tannenberg by the protestant church association in Germany immediately after the war, they obviously had different associations with such types. Indeed, my experience is that the appreciation and associations of various kinds of blackletter are much subtler within Germany than they are outside Germany, in part because they belong to a longer historical context with many more nuances.

Please read again carefully what I wrote regarding the use of Gill types. Of course the vast majority of people have never heard of Gill, wouldn't recognise his types, and don't know about what he apparently did to his daughters. My point was that for certain kinds of jobs for certain kinds of clients his types would be inappropriate because if someone were to draw public attention to them in the context of Gill's person they would cause embarassment to the client and unwanted attention to the design rather than to the client's message. I never said that Gill's types are ‘Kid Abuse fonts’ -- that's your phrase, not mine --, only that there are circumstances in which their extra-typographic associations would make them inappropriate. There are plenty of uses for which I would not consider these associations to be relevant at all, and the same is true for a type like Tannenberg. I am explicitly not saying that this is a ‘Nazi font’, I am saying that its use in the context of National Socialism may contribute to associations that make it inappropriate in some circumstances. In other circumstances, these associations may be irrelevant.

But the associations are not ‘nothing to do with reality’: they are part of reality that, depending on circumstances, are more or less relevant. Typefaces are regularly selected on account of their perceived associations, e.g. the use of Didot and Bodoni style types in fashion magazines because of their association with elegance and sophistication. Sometimes these associations originate extra-typographically, and sometimes they are deliberately fostered by designers, advertisers, etc. But just as it is legitimate to select a typeface because of such associations, it is legitimate to reject a typeface for the same reasons.

They are part of reality if we continue to fall on our knees in front of political correctness, praising the God of "Don't do that, its a No-No.", yes. I can understand, what Kochlefel wrote in another forum over here. If jewish organisations would not like to see (old) german fonts used for their ads. But I cannot understand if (old) german fonts are okay, but no Fraktur fonts. Someone should explain it to them. Not a font is Nazi, what is in some peoples brain, is a wrong combination. And it makes no sense to say "this is the reality, we have to live with it.". That is my opinion. Since years I see these hate flames against german Fraktur, especially against fonts like Tannenberg. To respect these flames, means to respect opinions like in this thread about the battle of Tannenberg (where's the font name is coming from). Tannenberg font = Nazi = Tannenberg battle = Nazi. And this is wrong.

Georg
_______________________________________________
„Ich bin ein Preuße, kennt Ihr meine Farben...“

> Someone should explain it to them.

Yes, but slowly, gently, pragmatically.
Not via denial, not via blitzkrieg.

hhp

So much of this discussion is too polemic for me. It assumes that there is a always a clear-cut right and wrong. This ties in to the whole German question. Perhaps the tragedy of 20th century societies was that it was not just a matter of black and white, or good Germans and bad Germans. There was a whole lot of gray. There were Germans in the 1930s who were not Nazis. But sometimes, some of them made decisions that inadvertently helped those on the wrong side reach their goals. This doesn't make them bad people, but even good people can sometimes make bad decisions.

Many type founders in the 1930s were clearly hoping to cash in on the new "nationalism" wave in German society. The NS government told Germans to be proud of themselves, and many Germans were proud of their achievements. But the NS government wanted to harness this pride for evil purposes in the end. Companies who were not thinking of these consequences were quite eager to make money where they could.

In different ways, you see things like this today. I got sick last week in Berlin seeing a T-Mobile poster. On the poster, a young woman stands in front of a Berlin Wall piece and looks at her smart phone. The headline says (in German) "borders were yesterday; today, there is no song that my phone doesn't recognize." What???!!! This is a publicly traded company cashing in on some peoples' sentimental feelings about German reunification, and I think that it is below the belt. People died trying to get across that wall. Yesterday, I know several people who cried while watching the remembrance festivities. But hey, isn't it so easy to make money like this?

D. Stempel AG wanted to make money in 1934 when they released Tannenberg. They did not want to contribute to some typographic culture or to a vague notion of societal improvement. They wanted to pay the bills, and have something left over to spare. I wish that Stempel would have found a different tactic than to design a font that looks like the way Tannenberg does, and which is named what it is. I understand that Tannenberg is not an NS-proclamation. I will use plenty of German faces from the 1930s, but I am sorry… I do draw the line somewhere. And that line is Tannenberg. It is just too across the Nationialist gray area for me.

Georg, I know that you are Prussian and you love your heritage, but I am sure plenty of Frenchman and Englishmen in 1934 would have wished that Hindenberg had lost the second battle of Tannenberg in 1914. Just because all German nationalism isn't National Socialism doesn't mean that it has to be universally accepted. Moreover, looking back even on Hindenberg's personal career, he is not free from totalitarian taint. If he had made different decisions in his political life, the world would have been a better place today, perhaps. I don't see anything particularly noteworthy about the second battle of Tannenberg.

But even if Tannenberg had been called "Frieden" instead, I doubt that I would want to use it. Its design competes with National, and a number of post-1933 designs that were trying to make a quick buck on a wave that turned out to be very evil indeed.

And I won't be taking the quiz on your website. My criticisms are the same as those already mentioned above. But I wish you the best of success with it anyway.

Nice, Dan.

> Its design competes with National

Are there any good samples of it?

hhp

What I mean is that many of these typefaces we are discussing were brought onto the market at a similar time. They are competitors. Stempel was hoping—like always—that printers would buy their typeface instead of something similar from Bauer, etc.

I don't have any samples of these designs in use other than in the books already mentioned (like the three publications I'm aware of from the Cooper Union Show, and then the normal surveys of blackletter and/or German graphic design history).

Hrant, you may be interested in this book. It is only available in German, at least for the moment – NSCI: The Image of the National Socialists 1925–1945.

We haven't talked in ages, Hrant! It is a pity that I wasn't in Mexico City. If I am very lucky, I might be in LA for TypeCon next year. I'm good to go for Dublin 2010, though, I think.

Get lucky - LA is going to rule. But I'm looking good
for Dublin too. It would be great to meet up again!
Although my СССР shirt is in bad shape. ;-)

That book looks exquisite. Any hope of an English
edition? Hey, maybe you should offer to translate.

hhp

I will translate just about any type book from German to English if someone wants to make it worth my while! I bet that I'm pretty cheap, too… but no one has ever taken up the offer yet.

I don't know about that publisher and English translations. They are a small company, and I think that they only have the capabilities to focus on the German-language market. Perhaps their authors are free to arrange international publication rights on their own? This is just one of several titles that seems like it could easily do well on the international design book market. But my point-of-view is just that of an outsider (and customer!).

>But the NS government wanted to harness this pride for evil purposes in the end.

No, they wanted to harness this pride--and more feeling of anger and humiliation from WWI and economic collapse--for evil *in the beginning*. Their evil purposes were clear from the start. And your stuff about shades of gray is wrong.

The Nazis were for power through domination and violence upon "lesser" peoples from the beginning. The choices were far more clear than you are indicating. The question was not of grays, but of whether to be complicit with evil, fight it, or be enthusiastic for it. It was a polarizing time. Now those who were simply complicit with evil had lots of motivation, as the Nazis would kill those who didn't go along. I am not saying that if I were in their shoes I would have done better, but what they did was not to choose among grays. The choice was to save your own skin by not opposing evil, or highly to risk it by opposition, or by going into exile.

William, there are always shades of gray; in fact there is never pure black or pure white. Just like there are people in the Israeli government who don't believe in ethnic cleansing.

hhp

Well, I am not saying that the Nazis were good at one point, only to become evil at a later point! What I mean is that Nazism began as a small movement, but became so big not just because they found lots more evil people, but also because many people helped their cause by not really caring or thinking through what they were doing.

Well, its wrong to separate into WWI and WWII e.g.
It was one war from 1914 to 1945. The Nazi were the logical answer to what happened after 9th of November 1918. Germanny surrendered because of US president Wilson's 14 points. But the "contract" of Versailles had nothing to do with Wilson's will. It was a ahame for every german. So a general movement to national thinking began in Germany after 1918 and Hitler only concentrated it. No one wanted war in Germany, but become free again from underpressure. That's how it is. And the allies tried to hold Germany down to the ground at all. Churchill said it from 1925. So it came how it came. Germany lost this war and never ever came back.

Yes, I although became tears in my eyes looking TV yesterday night about re-union between middle and west Germany. But although because we still lost east Germany, where all my family is coming from. This today is Poland and a part is Russia. But I have a damned human right to be sad we lost east Germany. Its not only a piece of ground. Its our homeland.

Its not so easy with beginners of the war. Its not black and white. Just how Dan said it.

Georg
_______________________________________________
„Ich bin ein Preuße, kennt Ihr meine Farben...“

Dan, I am admittedly no expert on the history, but in my understanding of it your view of it is not correct. Many Germans were attracted to evil because it promised power. And they did become evil as a result. It is in my view important to recognize the attraction of evil to people, the power of evil. If you don't see that you are missing one of the dangers to be combated. A great many Germans, under the pressure of humiliation, economic distress and the temptations of pride and domination, did become evil, and do evil things. The Nazis were an evil regime, and many, many Germans became evil in promoting and supporting it. This is an extremely ugly truth, but a truth none the less.

I am not saying that Americans or Israelis or Armenians are inherently better or worse; I just think it is important not to minimize in any way how tempting evil becomes under certain circumstances, and with a certain outlook.

By the way, this discussion relates to the "banality of evil" debate in which Hannah Arendt argued that Eichman was not a dedicated anti-Semite, but a go-along-to-get-along bureaucrat. But it turns out that is false; he was a dedicated anti-Semite. And I think that this general approach to understanding the triumph of the Nazis is wrong on an issue where it is important to get it right.

Hrant, there are always grays, but I think the '30s in Germany was a time of extreme polarization in choices, with extreme penalties whichever way one went. It was a time of horrible choices, choices which no human should ever have to face.

"The question was not of grays, but of whether to be complicit with evil, fight it, or be enthusiastic for it."
And of course, the question of what is evil (or even Evil); or where its boundary to the Normal, the Common, and perhaps the Inconsequential lies, was crystal clear to everyone from the beginning. Just like it is to everyone today. :-\

As Otl Aicher writes: "The Nazis have not fallen from the heavens, they have not risen from hell. They were simply the most consistent 'normal citizens' of the new times." Also: "It is simply not true that the Nazis constituted a sudden outburst of something unforeseeable, of something completely anomalous. […] Every millionaire, today, believes in the same philosophies of progress and higher development, of struggle and victory over the weaker ones. He [the millionaire] would never admit that, nor would he need to, because it is outside of his personal judgment. He leaves it up to the normative power of money to create truths."
(From Otl Aicher, "Innenseiten des Kriegs", my translation.)

"But it turns out that is false"
William, that's a very easy way of refuting Hannah Arendt. Have some sources?

Nina, I wasn't refuting Hannah Arendt but referring to those who did refute her.

Here is a very recent criticism of her views, and of Heidegger, whose mistress she was, and whose enthusiastic support of Hitler she never came to terms with.

What Otl Aicher wrote maligns every millionaire as believing simply in power and domination. I think that is simply crap, and an effort to minimize or excuse or condone the evil of those who actively supported the Nazis.

Every nation has plenty of people who are corruptible, as evil tendencies are a part of human nature. Thus if you want to say that the Nazis were but an extreme form of what has happened before and since, and could happen anywhere, I would agree. If you want to excuse or minimize the evil of promoting Nazis, or the actual extent of enthusiastic support for the Nazis in Germany in the 1930s, I would say that is wrong, both factually and morally.

I would also say that Bleisetzer's claim that "No one wanted war in Germany" is ridiculous. Hitler wanted world domination, and was eager to go to war to achieve it, as history shows. And he found many in Germany eager and willing to fight in his cause.

Georg, WWII was not a "logical" result of Versailles. If no one wanted to fight, well then they shouldn't have. It is not so that the fall of democracy in the Weimar republic was inevitable.

And please, let us not get started on the former German lands in the east. History is not just one side against the other. Other people are living in those territories now. This is settled law and history. Human rights? Who will argue seriously that life in the BRD is bad. Especially today, but even as early ago as the 50s. Sure, life can be hard anywhere. But it is less hard in today's Germany than almost anywhere else.

"Thus if you want to say that the Nazis were but an extreme form of what has happened before and since, and could happen anywhere, I would agree. If you want to excuse or minimize the evil of promoting Nazis, or the actual extent of enthusiastic support for the Nazis in Germany in the 1930s, I would say that is wrong, both factually and morally."

Absolutely the former, William.

@ Dan

Human rights? Who will argue seriously that life in the BRD is bad.

Are you talking about the financial situation of the people only? The German constitutional court has a lot to do, because a few of our ministers claim, that they want to protect us against terrorism, when they castrate our civil rights. And Germany is not the only country, that goes this way. In combination with the shady sides of capitalism, that most of us notice (Hrant’s link above), we are on a dangerous way. You will be welcome on the next "Freiheit-statt-Angst-Demo" in Berlin.

William, you and I have gone round on Arendt and Eichmann before, and in a very similar context. All I'll add to what I said a few years ago is that the Rosenbaum piece in Slate you linked to on Arendt and Heidegger is just junk; Rosenbaum really has no idea what he's writing about. Even people convinced that Heidegger's philosophy is essentially National Socialist, or who think Arendt was tainted by her association with him, should steer clear of Rosenbaum's piece if they're looking for intellectual support.

If you'd like a better take on this issue, Altaira, conducted by people who know what they're talking about, check out this thread at Crooked Timber and the discussion of Arendt and the linked articles and discussions that surely will ensue as the thread matures. The original post there, by the way, was--synchronicity!--about blackletter type as well as about Heidegger, and Robin Kinross himself has weighed in to the discussion.

I just do not understand:

-- why people have to insist that moral monsters have to look like cartoon demons in order to be evil;

-- why we have to believe that ideas that give us no resistance to evil must be the same as or somehow necessarily lead to that evil; and--going back to Hrant's original post--

-- why people think that the debate over whether a typeface has certain contingent and sometimes arbitrary cultural and historical connotations should be framed as whether that typeface is 'essentially' the quality or qualities in question. That frame is guaranteed to get you precisely nowhere fast.

Oops, meant to say: the original post at Crooked Timber was also about Jan Tschichold and his later assessment of his approach to sans-serif type and the New Typography, where he worried that his tone in books like Die Neue Typographie was too similar to that of the Nazis. The blackletter stuff came up later.

I don't see what's junk in Rosenbaum's article. And there are a number of others who have argued the same basic point about Arendt.

On Heidegger, folks can compare his actual immense praise of Nazism and of Hitler, as quoted in the wikipedia article on Heidegger and Nazism with the apologists on the "crooked timber" commentaries and decide for themselves.

In my view, Heidegger's irrationalism opens the door to any fanatic philosophy, which is why he was able to defend Hitler and his follower Sartre able to defend Stalin. It's putrid philosophy.

William, it's junk because:

(1) it presents as 'new' allegations that have been tossed around for years;

(2) it accuses by association and bad logic (Heidegger was a philosopher, Heidegger openly supported the Nazis with appeals to his philosophy, ergo Heidegger's philosophy must have caused him to be a Nazi, ergo further that reading his philosophy might cause anyone to become a Nazi, including Hannah Arendt, who must have caught Nazi from him when she slept with him, and then caught it again when doing the research for The Origins of Totalitarianism, and that she and Karl Jaspers must both have been acting from Nazi-apologetic motives when they tried to reinclude him in the Western conversation of philosophy);

(3) it takes the arguments made by the authors of the books under review at face value without subjecting them to investigation, indeed without even mentioning except in dismissive asides ('Arendt's defenders') that many more scholars who have read (and understood) both authors extensively, who condemn Heidegger's support for the Nazis, and who have serious problems with both Heidegger and Arendt's philosophical approaches, think very little of the ideas the authors of these two books are promoting; and

(4) it doesn't actually engage Arendt's philosophy, or Heidegger's philosophy, at all, which you would think would be a minimal requirement for explaining why they're so poisonous and why we should avoid them or slap at least Heidegger's books with warning stickers. (Note: quoting is not the same as engaging.)

William, I want you to know that I've thought a lot about our last argument. Since then I've read Judith Shklar's essay on Arendt's thought (the Google Books preview is here) and it seemed to clarify a lot about why Arendt's work in Totalitarianism and Eichmann in Jerusalem, and her relationship with Heidegger, is received the way it is among many in Jewish communities in the US and Europe and Israel. But whatever Arendt's own sins were, they don't justify lazy thinking about her work; and whatever Heidegger's sins were--and they were legion--there is an ethically nontrivial difference between a philosophy that we can't use to rule out evil conclusions, and a philosophy that mandates them.

But I have hijacked Hrant's thread too much already. I'm happy to let you have the last word.

Although I do think this has all drifted too far from typography, please don't worry about the integrity of "my" thread, since I've already collected more than enough ammo from it. Basically you've hijacked a ship that has already docked and had its cargo delivered. :-)

hhp

> ...but also because many people helped their cause by not really caring or thinking through what they were doing.

?

See Prof. Karl D. Bracher -- Die deutsche Diktatur: Entstehung, Struktur, Folgen des Nationalsozialismus

The German Dictatorship: Origins, Structure and Consequences of National Socialism

Hrant has said intention is everything. Agreed.
Stempel was trying to generate profits.
That is evil.

As are we all.

Milan Kundera postulated when we were expelled from Paradise humans were cast into linear time.

I live with a cat whose needs are clear.

pbc

A luring title (how could one possibly pass by both an “Urgent” AND a “Verboten” in a title in the “HOTTEST” section?), a request so inconspicuously and yet containing every single ingredient for defty polemical online debates: Swastika! Nazi! Adolf Hitler!

And as the Pavlovian bell rings, the finger-wagging and venom-spitting expectedly begins − reading all this leaves a somehow nasty taste in my mouth (even Mr Hrant already tried to close his Pavlovian Pandora’s box).

Fortunately, someone explains us, backed by some evidence-based knowledge (wikipedia?) that the names of the “Schlichte Gotisch”s already contain every single grain of past and future German ferocities. I mean if people had a closer and more watchful look on “Schaftstiefelgrotesks” in the beginning, they could have banned it at an earlier stage and thus spare us WW2, Auschwitz and the Allied flooring of whole cities!

Wanna know a secret? Stempel AG didn’t even want to contribute to some typographic culture or to a vague notion of societal improvement like the foundries and type designers do nowadays! And to top it all, Stempel AG wanted to make money with Tannenberg!!

Celeste, as a friend I have to warn you, if you keep chanting vulgarities like “German pride”, “Tannenberg” or “Deutchland” in front of your screen, the fifth time you say it either Hitler, Wilhelm II or at least a dirty old Teutonic Knight could appear behind you and re-enact the Reich instantly! I wonder why you didn’t even mention “Großdeutsch” - by the way a name that loses much of its scare factor as soon as one takes a closer look on its historical roots.

But maybe it’s better to avoid the closer look on history since we run the risk of detecting and rejecting the blood-drenched symbols of British, French, Russian or Spanish imperialism or even find out that the country that considers itself messianic and chosen to dictate the world what’s good and what’s bad owes its very existence to genocide, slavery, expulsion and deprivation of land.
[not that I really believe there’s even one country, ethnic group or whatever on this planet that can disclaim credibly the committing of these crimes in its history]

As long as adults keep arguing seriously about what and who’s to be labled as “good”, “bad” and “evil” and whose idol of reality is the One True God we can go on forever with redundant quarrels. Yeee-haw, bang, boom!

A good many times it’s the most devotional priestling who lures his protégés into his confessional.

Has every single one of us to be blamed for selective perception and hypocrisy after all? Of course not! Maybe you, her, certainly him, but not me!

Oh, and on the type-relevant question in this thread:

Should a designer make his client aware of possible connotations of fonts, symbols, colour schemes etc?
I’d say this is a major part of our job, isn’t it?

On the other hand I was wondering why this request came up at all, was it really that difficult to find some examples by yourself that would bring across your idea of a “Nazi font”?

Anyway, there are great examples of Gebrochene Grotesks in use, thanks for sharing them, and I think the “Hochzeitnudeln” are just perfect. The label contrasts perfectly the often Mediterranean and squiggly, “scripty” look of the competitive products and communicates credibility, honesty, solidity and a down-to-earth attitude for the brand.

Is there a better way to say “Hartweizen”?

FYI, Blackletter: Type and National Identity, the original publication of essays distributed by Princeton Architectural Press is in print here. You should note pricing is a fraction of the Amazon rate.

Maurice, you ascribe to Rosenbaum a bunch of stuff he doesn't say, including everything in your #2. On #1, he only says some of the stuff is new, especially the evidence of Arendt's adoption of language from anti-Semitic thinkers. As to his lack of critique, this is a journalistic piece that comments on scholarly work, and doesn't pretend to be scholarship itself.

As to the connection between Heidegger's work and violent, extremist politics, I think you don't get it. It isn't simply that Heidegger's philosophy doesn't rule it out. It is rather that it makes moves to permit and protect it philosophically. The denial of the validity of logic began with Hegel and was joined in him with new and extreme nationalism. Heidegger was only the latest in that line. Irrationalism protects dogmatism and extremism, and excuses for violence and racism. The historical evidence of the connection is clear because the same Hegelian philosophy was promoted in Japan and helped to support the WW II era Japanese militarism and racism as it did German militarism and racism.

The link between Heidegger's philosophy and Nazism that Rosenbaum asserts is this: "it becomes ever clearer that the allegiance was not merely opportunistic and careerist but derived from a philosophical affinity with his Fuhrer's effusions." His comment is weak because he doesn't go into the "affinity", but I just have. Popper, in his "Open Society and Its Enemies" does go into the Hegelian background to totalitarian movements. He didn't discuss Heidegger because he had such contempt and revulsion for him that he didn't want to dignify him by discussing him. He respected Marx, and discussed him extensively, but just found the right wing defenders of a closed society too repulsive to mention.

> was it really that difficult to find some examples by yourself

This is a place where people help each other. Sometimes that help comes in the form of saving time*; and to me time is the most valuable thing we have. So thank you.

* Although I've also learned things thanks to this thread.

hhp

I'm an idealist. I will never believe that we shouldn't be naked in the forest making love whenever we feel like it and eating fruit.

But then we must protect our LoveMakingZone. LMZ™.

So I'm a pragmatist that knows we live in a rotting empire that is going to result in fissures.

Far from ideal or pragmatic, I write things.
Like this.

pbc

Few years ago I was in Switzerland. Imagine a nice, safe place. St Gallen: ducks, trees, a street. Suddently I got frozen. It was a moment of subliminal fear. What did I see? A pink, innocent poster of swiss army, with a list of reservists, entitled "Bekanntmachung". It had the same colour, the same wooden block title and the same layout as german lists of mass shootings that every polish child knows from history classes. It was the only time typography acted this way on me. Freezing, freezing the blood for a moment.

----------------------------------

I cannot leave one thing without a comment. The teller in the article linked by Bleisitzer says:

"The Poles, initiated in the twenties three uprisings in order to win the Upper Silesia to Poland, even though a referendum organized by the League of Nations had voted in large majority to remain part of the Reich".

The first uprising was the answer on german terror (massacres and repressions) on the future referendal terrain. The second exploded after next numerous acts of terror (Germans still controlled the administration and secret police). The last uprising changed the unprofitable result of the referendum, where polish majority voted against her interests. Let's remember that years 1918-20 were the time of polish-soviet war, when it wasn't clear if Poland would survive... After the referendum, Silesian activists resident in territories granted to Germany still suffered riot acts of terrorism.

Often, history doesn't matter half as much as peoples' impressions it.

You wouldn't use Novak or Genie in magazine for—oh, say a conservative political organization. Not because either is a "hippie" font and therefore, unconservative, but the association with things radical, hip & psychedelic is inescapable.

We all agree that fonts communicate more than the words they letters spell out, or we wouldn't be any more interested in them than everyone else. That "something" that they do communicate comes from someplace, and is not something a designer can have any control over. In the case of "Nazi fonts", it doesn't matter what the facts are. Yes Hitler may well have called them Jewish letters, but regardless of that, anytime a someone is trying to think of a font to use for something about the Third Reich, they are going to reach for something that evokes Nazism to them. Guess what it will look like most often.

-=®=-

The first line in my post above should read "… history doesn’t matter half as much as peoples’ impressions of it.

-=®=-

Here's something creepy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Replica_Sign.jpg
It's a replica of the entrance sign at the "concentration-camp light" where the US imprisoned Japanese people.

hhp