Did Hitler and Porsche Steal the VW Beetle Design from a Jew?
Paul Schilperoord is a Dutch automotive engineer, writer, and missionary. His mission is to bring to the world the story of another automotive engineer and writer, Josef Ganz.
Ganz was born in 1898 in Budapest to a German father and a Hungarian mother. He made his career in Germany, where he contributed and edited technical automotive publications, patented and licensed his inventions, and worked as a consultant to automobile and motorcycle companies. He contributed to BMW’s first in-house car design, the AM1, and he worked on Mercedes Benz’s landmark 170 model as well.
He was an outspoken and passionate advocate for the concept of a light, simple, inexpensive car that the average person could afford, starting in 1923. He called his concept the Volkswagen and used the name Maikäfer (May Beetle) for the prototypes he made for his client companies.
In 1933, Standard Fahrzeugfabrik introduced the Standard Superior Volkswagen at the Berlin auto show, based on Ganz’ designs. Mechanically, it has a platform chassis with a center tube, a rear transaxle with a horizontal engine, a swing axle suspension in the back, and independent suspension in the front. The body is a simple aerodynamic shape that looks very similar to that of the VW Beetle.
Hitler attended that same Berlin auto show in 1933. I have no idea if he stopped at the Standard Fahrzeugfabrik stand, but within a year Josef Ganz was arrested by the Gestapo and charged with blackmail for trying to protect his patent rights.
The dispute was with Tatra, a Czech company controlled by a Volksdeutsche family. Schilperoord says he’s discovered ties between Tatra and the Gestapo. Ganz, a Jew, fled to Switzerland where he again tried to get his Volkswagen built after the war. Eventually he immigrated to Australia, where he worked for Holden and continued to invent. He died in obscurity in 1967, though you can find patents of his online at the U.S. Patent Office.
In 1934, Dr. Ferdinand Porsche was commissioned by Hitler to develop the KdF-Wagen. Dr. Porsche came up with a lightweight car built on a platform chassis with a center tube, a rear transaxle with a horizontal engine, a swing axle suspension in the back, and independent suspension in the front. The body is a simple aerodynamic shape we recognize as the VW Beetle.
The rest, as they say, is history, a history that has been wiped clean of the role of Josef Ganz. Schilperoord is trying to rewrite that history — he’s a historical revisionist of the good kind.
Wiki has some decent articles on this. It certainly looks like ganz got screwed.
Ronnie,
I at first thought, ‘Oh boy – here we go . . .”, read the article and said to myself that the author covered all the bases I would have brought up, and then I see your name on the byline. Well done.
Hope to see you in Chicago in February.
- Hugo
I find this article offensive for it’s implications, and frankly the “argument” is not compelling at all to an engineer. The concept for the volkswagon (people’s car) was taken from Henry Ford. The concept was a cheap, mass produced, non-custom coachwork car that would be in the price range of the general population.
That many were interested in building a “peoples car” is not in the slightest remarkable. That Hitler wanted this is a no brainer. Hitler admired Ford.
Other than the rounded silhouette, which is simply a function of the styling of the day, overlaid on a non-front engine car, there nothing similiar about this car and the VW type at the design level.
Basic design considerations dictate that there are very few options in terms of the layout of a car’s drive train. Let’s count them – front engine, rear wheel drive, mid engine, RWD, rear engine RWD and since the mid ’70s, Front engine, FWD. None of these concepts can be traced an individual designer – they are all self evident to anyone who thinks about it. Each of these layouts conceptually has advantages and disadvantages, all well known to designers.
The advantage of a mid-engine car is neutral weight distribution, the disadvantage is that the engine is where you want the passenger compartment to be. This, in and of itself, makes the mid-engine layout stupid for a “people’s car”. Mid engine is only used on performance/sport cars where the passengers are an afterthought. Very bad idea for what Hitler wanted.
Certainly the big disadvantage of rear engine cars is cooling, which leads to a secondary problem, the manufacturing cost of an air cooled engine – it’s essentially an aircraft engine. Hitler specified that he wanted a car that would not boil over in the desert or freeze up in Siberia (perhaps an indication of his future plans). Since he wanted an air cooled car anyway, rear engine was the way to go. Not really much of an innovation on Porsche’s.
There is no doubt that the VW engine was entirely Porsche’s work, I have books that show all of the design work and experimental engines Porsche developed before settling on a final design. Some of the engines used sliding sleeves for valves, others had 4 cylinders, but only 2 fired, the other two supercharged the intake for the firing cylinders.
Another Porsche innovation was the torsion bar, trailing arm front suspension. It’s part of the reason that the VW has superior off road performance, still used today at baja.
From a design standpoint, these cars have little in common, other than the rounded silhouette, and the title “people’s car”, hardly justification for the ugly title of this article. I can’t defend what Hilter did, but it’s no excuse to steal credit from Porsche decades after the fact.
I am not an engineer but I have owned both VW’s and Porsche’s and I am very familiar with their engine/transaxle set up and suspension. I find it interesting that Hoosierhawk did not find any similarity between Gan’s design and Porsche’s. The central tube is a unique idea and to have two engineers come up with it simultaneously is unlikely, although it has happened before and since. The Ford idea was the first for a cheap people’s car but not an air cooled rear engine location. Couple that with the swing axle and the horizontal opposed engine things start to look awfully coincidental. Also, the placement of the engine on a prototype design is usually made from an engineering viewpoint and not practicality. I would imagine that subsequent models would have a more practical design. Perhaps Dr. Porsche realized this problem and incorporated it into his car. One must remember that a lot of events that went on during Hitler’s rise to and attainment of power were reported to give him the credit for imagining them. It is very easy to imagine his corrupt regime taking credit for many other peoples designs and ideas and to use “Official” publications of the period would not be considered a fount of truth.
I seem to remember another tube backbone chassis from about the same time frame – the W170 Mercedes-Benz, IIRC. Also don’t forget Porsche’s Auto Union GP cars – granted they were twin-tube ladder-type frames – but he definitely had a background designing tube chassis as opposed to C section frames.
The point of this well-written article is that there is an untold story surrounding Porsche’s design that involves Mr. Ganz. Whether you choose to accept all or part of the author’s premise is your decision. Knowing the history of National Socialism and its perpetrators, it is not an intellectual stretch to accept the likelihood that Porsche did what he had to do to meet Hitler’s demands. One can be certain that Jewish patent and intellectual property claims had no standing in German law of the day. A worthy defense of Porsche’s would not be helped by the fact that Volkswagen paid, “3 million deutschmarks to Tatra to settle patent claims” as late as 1961.
Josef Ganz’ story is important on several levels and adds to our understanding of one of the most horrific periods in human history. We should have an opportunity to make our own judgment.
The German manufacturer Hanomag was manufacturing an essentially similar car in 1923–before the Tatra. Secondly, the Volkswagen engine was a variation of the Porsche-designed aircraft engine that was used in German fighter planes in WWI, again, before the Tatra. Additionally, the Volkswagen used aircraft technology, hence the tube backbone, a feature of aircraft design.
I don’t mean to belabor the point, but I find the article deceptive. It seems to build a strong case for the similiar features of the two cars, but to anyone that is familiar with automotive design, it’s pretty meaningless.
“Mechanically, it has a platform chassis with a center tube, a rear transaxle with a horizontal engine, a swing axle suspension in the back, and independent suspension in the front. The body is a simple aerodynamic shape that looks very similar to that of the VW Beetle.”
How many mid or rear engine cars do you know of that don’t have a “platform chassis”? Ok, it has a belly pan and there is tunnel to hide the throttle cable, brake line and shift mechanism. Who has ever done it differently?
Rear transaxle with a horizontal engine. All front wheel drive, mid or rear engine cars have transaxles. The only kind that don’t are front engine, RWD which have seperate transmissions and axles. I don’t know of any rear engine cars that don’t have flat engines. Of course, the exotic mid engine cars have big V8s or 12s, but they aren’t really “people’s cars” are they?
Swing axle rear suspension? The only other alternative is to put in short driveshafts with CV or u-joints. VW started doing this in the early ’70, but they weren’t popular,they weren’t nearly as strong off road. Where else would the swing axle be on a rear engine car, in front?
Independent suspension isn’t a design of suspension, it just means that the front wheels are sprung seperate from each other. Several completely different designs would all be considered “independent”, it’s more of a marketing term.
If you are going to discuss a cars mechanical layout it seems like the fact that it was mid engine would come up first and foremost, that is a big difference.
Why didn’t you go full tilt and talk about all the incredible similiarities? They both had 4 wheels, equiped with black rubber tires that hold air. Both cars were build primarily of steel. Each had a passenger compartment, that the occupant’s could enter and exit through doors mounted hinges. Clearly this design was stolen from a jew by the Nazis.
The reason the author didn’t mention these is that even a layman would realise how ridiculous it was.
The VW type 1 was chock full of little innovations that made the rear engine design work well, however most of the design innovations were all the details that made the car easy to manufacture. To say that the “design” was stolen is simply not fair to one of history’s great automotive designers.
A further historical note, we know that Hilter was at the 1933 Berlin Motor show because it was there that He announced the people’s car program. It doesn’t seem likely that Hitler saw anything that he thought fit the bill at that point, As a fascist dictator, he could have had it immediately.
Aged Cheddar,
Yes, I believe that you should be able to make your own Judgement, However the settlement with Tatra does little to further Ganz’ case. If you look at the work of Hans Ledwinka with Tatra, you can clearly see the influence on the Type I, there is no doubt that Porsche used ideas that he obtained from his contacts with Ledwinka.
But what is the story here? Is the story line that a designer for a Czech car company stole the design from a German Jew, but was subsequently stolen from by Porsche?
Porsche apparently admitted that he had been “looking over Ledwinka’s shoulder”, because Hilter said that was the kind of car he after. That’s not the same as stealing the design, although it could lead to patent infringment on certain details.
Throughout the history of automotive development, designers have looked at what others are doing, using the good ideas, rejecting others. I’ve never heard of this refered to as “stealing a design”.
Porsche was commissioned to design a small rear engine car for mass manufacture, based on previous work that he had done. I have no doubt that the VW type I was engineered by Porsche, simply because certain features were not conceptally unique is no basis for the claim that the design was stolen – and throwing in the Nazi/Jew angle is deplorable.
#3: “The concept for the volkswagon (people’s car) was taken from Henry Ford.”
Henry Ford and Hitler shared a lot of concepts.
“Henry Ford and Hitler shared a lot of concepts.”
Yes, they did.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the following is a link to an article that discusses the development of the Beetle
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1931-1945-volkswagen-beetle1.htm
I’ll let each of you decide for yourselves whether the Porsche designed rear engine 1933 NSU Type 32 or the Ganz designed mid engine 1933 Standard Superior has more in common with the 1936 KdF-wagon.
As the article states “While none of these ideas were new even in the early 1930s, Porsche’s great achievement was to put so much sophistication into one relatively simple car.”
Stolen Design? Not so much.
Bilio44:
Yes, they shared a lot of concepts.
Meanwhile the following is a link to an article that discussed the development of the Beetle,
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1931-1945-volkswagen-beetle1.htm
I’ll leave it to each to decide whether the Porsche designed, rear engine, 1933 NSU type 32 or the Ganz designed, mid engine, 1933 Standard Superior has more in common with the Hitler commissioned 1936 KdF-wagon.
As the article states “While none of these ideas were new even in the early 1930s, Porsche’s great achievement was to put so much sophistication into one relatively simple car.”
Stolen design? Not so much.
Facinating story. Would not put it past Porsche or any German of the time having done so.
Looks for me very close to the early Citroen 2 CV. Design theft is very common – look at Miata and the older Lotus.
Having said these, I’ll remind you about a phenomenon I call aerodinamization, i.e., manufacturers facing similar demands and restrictions will come up with very resembling designs – in this case we should examine in a closer manner Gantz’s car, then the early VW, the early Citroen and… hey, a Topolino, all these models being designed in Europe for very austere times -
RE #10/biblio44: [...] Henry Ford and Hitler shared a lot of concepts. [...]
viblio44: (viblio is not a typo, I just condensed the stupidest trolls I ever met, vivo and Bbibio44, in one name)…
… da cappo: viblio44, you keep defeating your, anyway very high, idiocy records…
addition to #14: I think that the early Citroen 2 CV had only one lamp, though – also, I vaguely remember an old Morris (to add a British product here) that closely resembling a Beetle… maybe…
That is a remarkable story … I had never heard this before now. Thanks for providing it here.
HoosierHawk: appointed you Hitlers apologist?
15. misanthropicus: “RE #10/biblio44: [...] Henry Ford and Hitler shared a lot of concepts. [...]viblio44: (viblio is not a typo, I just condensed the stupidest trolls I ever met, vivo and Bbibio44, in one name)…”
As expected, there’s always one a-hole in the crowd who misses The Deerborn Independent.
Yes HoosierHawk, why such vigor in defending the Reich when what is being reported is the engineering talent of Herr Ganz? Arrested, jailed, run out of the country. This doesn’t begin to sound like treatment that would bring credit to Hitler or Porche or the German people. Face it, in that socialist world, what was Hitler’s was his and what was yours was also his. Gee, sounds kind of familiar today!
mon cher Alceste, the “2CV” was designed by Porsche, well I read that recently
The today cars models look more or like the sames, designers attend the same schools and read the same professional magazines
RE #21/Marie Claude: [...] mon cher Alceste, the “2CV” was designed by Porsche, well I read that recently [...]
Marie-Claude, to clarify this: I don’t say, that the 2CV was designed by Porsche – all I say is that circumstances force designers to come with resembling progets -
Best regards -
“Yes HoosierHawk, why such vigor in defending the Reich”
Some of you people are bizarre, in what way was HoosierHawk “defending the reich”? He’s talking about a car not ideology, world domination or genocide! His thesis was, “Stolen design? Not so much.” Some of you seem to remove all critical thought process when anything German comes into discussion. A lot of Germans were run out of the country or jailed or …, how is any of this glorifying the little corporal? Your pecksniffian attitude is a result of learning your history and morals from a television. Throwing in the Nazi/Jew angle is deplorable and I have to say, I’m not surprised.
Am I a Hitler apologist? Hell no, Am I a jew hating racist, hardly. For the record, I am a past VW enthusist, however earlier this year, I gave up the hobby as I have too many (hobbies). I GAVE my all original (6 volt)’66 hardtop to a very good friend, also a collector, who happens to be jewish. I gave it to him because he has a beautiful restored ’66 ragtop, I couldn’t bear to see anyone else with my ’66. Money wasn’t the issue.
My problem here is that I value the truth, and try not to allow my emotions or political views to taint history. In the early ’30s, Europe had many examples of aerodynamic, rear engine, air cooled cars. All of these bore a striking resemblance to the Beetle. the Steyr S50, Tatra 77 & T97 are a few examples, but there are several others, some of which were Porsche designs such as the NSU type 12.
At that point in history, cars were getting faster, lessons learned from aircraft design were pointing the way toward the importance of aerodynamics. Many designers realised that a streamlined rear engine car would be far “slippery” than the conventional 1920s cars. As a result, that type of car design proliferated in Germany. Of the many examples, I haven’t seen one that looked less like the beetle or had less in common with it, than the Ganz design above.
Hitler, may he rot in eternal hell fire, wanted a car with the latest design features that could be sold for the unheard of low price of DM1000. Even Porsche didn’t think it was possible, but he took the commission. The VW Type I was the successful result. It was not unique for it’s design features, it was unique because it was modern for it day, and was dirt cheap, the people’s car.
It’s a little like if 50 years from now, when the entire world is communist and we all have hovercrafts, somebody pulls out a picture a small front engine car designed by an obscure Soviet engineer and claims that the evil capitalists LBJ and Lee Iacocca stole the design for ’66 mustang.
Sure, there will be plenty of folks who would believe it, but only because they wouldn’t know that there were many cars that had common features, and would not understand what made the Mustang special. All they would think was that the cars were vaguely similiar, and then their hatred for capitalists would take over and Iacocca would have his proper credit taken from him. The truth wouldn’t matter, as some, as in this case, would simply prefer to believe it.
There is plenty of reasons to hate the Nazis, but stealing credit from Porsche because he was a german (not Nazi), is reverse racism, which is ugly in it’s own right.
Looks for me very close to the early Citroen 2 CV. Design theft is very common – look at Miata and the older Lotus.
misanthropicus,
The Miata is a special case. Tom Matano, who drew the original Miata for Mazda, was told by his bosses at Mazda to base the exterior design on that of the Lotus Elan. Since he openly admits that the Miata is derivative of the original Elan, it’s hardly a case of design theft. The Miata is more homage than thievery. Matano told me that he regards the last RX-7 to be his best work because unlike the Miata it’s a clean sheet design.
I don’t mean to belabor the point, but I find the article deceptive. It seems to build a strong case for the similiar features of the two cars, but to anyone that is familiar with automotive design, it’s pretty meaningless.
HoosierHawk,
Schilperoord is an automotive engineer, and knows enough about automotive design that he writes for engineering publications. He thinks his argument that Ganz’ designs influenced Porsche is persuasive. I worked for a tier 1 automotive supplier for more than two decades and now get paid to write about cars and the car biz. I won’t drop names but I’ve discussed automotive design with many leading automotive designers (my current favorite designers are Ian Callum and Franz von Holzhausen). I think it’s fair to say that I’m also familiar with automotive design. While I don’t think it’s 100% compelling, I agree with Schilperoord that his argument is persuasive. Your mileage may vary.
I tried to be fair in the article and laid out both the similarities and differences between the Porsche and Ganz designs. I also said that it was possible that Porsche, Ganz (and Hans Ledwinka) arrived at similar solutions independently. If you think that is deceptive, I think you’re the one who isn’t being impartial.
“Mechanically, it has a platform chassis with a center tube, a rear transaxle with a horizontal engine, a swing axle suspension in the back, and independent suspension in the front. The body is a simple aerodynamic shape that looks very similar to that of the VW Beetle.”
How many mid or rear engine cars do you know of that don’t have a “platform chassis”?
Offhand? Just about every mid or rear engined car not designed by Dr. Porsche. Until recently, most midengine designs used “space frames” made of welded up tubing. The Lotus Europa and Esprit, though, used a backbone chassis, and current Loti have a frame made of bonded and riveted aluminum extrusions. The exoticar companies like Ferrari and Lamborghini are moving from space frames to aluminum and carbon fiber tubs and modules. To my knowledge, nobody today builds a midengine car using a platform chassis.
In the automotive world, the platform chassis is generally associated with early VW and Porsche designs.
Ok, it has a belly pan and there is tunnel to hide the throttle cable, brake line and shift mechanism. Who has ever done it differently?
On the Beetle and early Porsches the belly pan and central tunnel are stressed structural members, as they are on Ganz’ design. Are you sure that you know what a “platform chassis” is?
Rear transaxle with a horizontal engine. All front wheel drive, mid or rear engine cars have transaxles.
Today, yes, but in the late 1920s and early 1930s transaxles were not widely used. The transaxle, btw, along with the midengined layout, was developed by Ernest Rumpler, another Jewish automotive pioneer.
The only kind that don’t are front engine, RWD which have seperate transmissions and axles.
Not necessarily. The Porsche 924/944/968, the current and previous generation Corvette, and all current Maseratis all have RWD and a front mounted engine that is connected by a torque tube to a rear transaxle. I’m pretty sure all current Aston Martins also have a front engine rear transaxle layout. It’s not a new idea either, as it was tried in early 1960s Pontiacs (Google [Pontiac "rope drive"]). Rear transaxles let automakers balance the weight while still allowing a front mounted engine, avoiding the rear visibility and engine service drawbacks to midengine layouts.
I don’t know of any rear engine cars that don’t have flat engines. Of course, the exotic mid engine cars have big V8s or 12s, but they aren’t really “people’s cars” are they?
Actually, I think some Ferraris have used flat “boxer”, horizontally opposed, engines. I’m pretty sure that the only companies that make flat engines these days are Porsche and Subaru. The only company that makes rear engined cars with flat engines is Porsche, with the current iteration of the 911. The niche for, as the great P.J. O’Rourke put it, ass-engine Nazi slot cars, is pretty limited to Porsche. Speaking of ass-engined Nazi cars, the Tatra 97, with its rear mounted V8 (not a flat motor), was very fast on the autobahns and popular with German officers. Rear engine cars have notoriously tricky handling (Google [trailing throttle oversteer]). Apparently Hitler eventually forbade his officers from driving the Tatra 97 because of the many wrecks.
You’re wrong about small rear engined cars all having flat engines. Sunbeam, Simca, Renault and Fiat all made lots of small rear engine cars with upright engine configurations. The Fiat 500, 600 and 850 all had upright rear engines.
The Smart car has a rear mounted engine and I’m pretty sure that the 3 cyl. engine is upright. In the case of the Smart, laying the transversely mounted engine down flat would have made the car longer.
Swing axle rear suspension? The only other alternative is to put in short driveshafts with CV or u-joints. VW started doing this in the early ‘70, but they weren’t popular,they weren’t nearly as strong off road. Where else would the swing axle be on a rear engine car, in front?
You’re looking at things from a modern perspective. Swing axles aren’t ideal because of camber changes as the wheel travels up and down, but in the 1920s and 1930s they were pretty much the state of the art. Ganz was an expert on swing axle suspensions and consulted on the design of the Mercedes Benz 170.
As for front swing axles, I’m sure it’s been done, probably in the early years of the automobile. An argument can be made that the “I-Beam Front Suspension” on Ford pickup trucks was a form of front swing axle.
Independent suspension isn’t a design of suspension, it just means that the front wheels are sprung seperate from each other. Several completely different designs would all be considered “independent”, it’s more of a marketing term.
Independent front suspension is not just a marketing term. There’s a reason why almost no passenger cars made today (except for Jeeps) have solid front axles. Are there many different designs for independent front suspensions? Sure there are. Can they all be engineered to work well? For the most part yes. In the 1920s, many cars, like the Model T, still had a solid front axle, so independent front suspension would have been considered an innovation (particularly on an inexpensive car for the masses), regardless of the actual design. From the drawings it appears that Ganz used a transverse leaf spring, not entirely unlike the current Corvette front suspension. It’s hard to tell from the images I’ve looked at, but it’s possible that Ganz used the leaf spring also as an upper control arm. Porsche used his patented front suspension design based on trailing arms and torsion bars. Porsche’s front suspension design may have been his most enduring invention as it stayed in production for 60 or 70 years (until the original Beetle finally ended Mexican and Brazilian production).
Today, of course, Dr. Porsche’s front suspension design is considered obsolete. There’s a reason why most cars today have front suspensions designed around control arms. However, in the late 1920s or early 1930s, any form of independent front suspension, Ganz’ or Porsche’s would have been an improvement over the Model T.
If you are going to discuss a cars mechanical layout it seems like the fact that it was mid engine would come up first and foremost, that is a big difference.
I pointed out that the major differences were engine layout and front suspension design. If that’s not good enough for you, oh well.
Clearly this design was stolen from a jew by the Nazis.
It’s picky to quibble about spelling, so I haven’t said anything about your other misspellings, but Jew should be capitalized. It’s interesting that you capitalized Nazi but neglected to capitalize Jew.
To say that the “design” was stolen is simply not fair to one of history’s great automotive designers.
So, because Porsche was a gifted engineer he wasn’t capable of moral shortcomings? Remember, we’re talking about a man who used slave laborers in his factory. He was willing to take ideas from Ledwinka, and he was willing to design weapons for the Nazis, but he was too moral to steal from a Jew?
Does it detract from Nuccio Bertone’s legacy to say that he took undue credit for the Lamborghini Miura, which was primarily the work of Gandini, a Bertone employee?
History is history.
Porsche acknowledged taking ideas from other engineers. His infringement of Tatra patents is a matter of record and legal settlement.
Porsche was a great engineer. He was also arguably history’s most amoral engineer, putting his talent to the service of a heinous regime.
A further historical note, we know that Hilter was at the 1933 Berlin Motor show because it was there that He announced the people’s car program.
I just did a search for Hitler’s speech at the 1933 Berlin show, and interestingly I found the following in Bug: the strange mutations of the world’s most famous automobile By Phil Patton.
Immediately after quoting Hitler’s speech about motorizing Germany (along with proposing building the autobahns) Patton says, “In Germany, which had given the world the internal combustion engine and its first applications in an automobile, the phrase “people’s car” had been heard for years. Automobile clubs and magazines like the popular Motorfabrik and its editor, Joseph Ganz, crusaded for such a car; volkswagen and volksauto were already practically generic terms.”
You’re giving Hitler credit for making a speech advocating a “volkswagen” at the same auto show where Standard was displaying Ganz’ “Superior Volkswagen”, already in production and on sale.
In any case, like Patton says, Ganz had been a vocal advocate for the concept of a “volkswagen” since the early 1920s. He wrote for and edited a leading German automotive publication (that is still in print) which gave him a pulpit for his advocacy. He specifically used the term “volkswagen”. Porsche and Ledwinka are dead and we can’t ask them if they were influenced by Ganz’ advocacy of the volkswagen, but it’s not unreasonable to assume Ganz’ ideas had influence.
However the settlement with Tatra does little to further Ganz’ case. If you look at the work of Hans Ledwinka with Tatra, you can clearly see the influence on the Type I, there is no doubt that Porsche used ideas that he obtained from his contacts with Ledwinka.
But what is the story here? Is the story line that a designer for a Czech car company stole the design from a German Jew, but was subsequently stolen from by Porsche?
No, Ganz’ patents that Tatra infringed were different patents than the Tatra patents that VW eventually acknowledged were infringed upon by Porsche and later Volkswagen. Schilperoord goes into detail on Ganz’ patents. It’s easy to see why things could be confusing. Ganz claimed that Tatra infringed on his patents. Later, Porsche acknowledged taking ideas from Tatra’s engineer, Ledwinka. The ideas that Porsche stole from Tatra were not the same Ganz patents that Tatra had previously infringed upon.
All of this is evidence that rather than being a footnote Ganz had an important role in automotive history. Schilperoord is doing a great service to automotive historians. We know that Porsche stole ideas from other engineers. We also know that the Nazis looted art and other valuables from Jews and others. Why is is so far fetched for you to consider that the Nazis and Porsche also looted valuable automotive ideas from a Jew?
Porsche apparently admitted that he had been “looking over Ledwinka’s shoulder”, because Hilter said that was the kind of car he after.
Hitler had nothing to do with that. To begin with, even Porsche’s defenders claim that he was working on small car prototypes (Zundapp Type 12, NSU Type 32) before Hitler’s 1933 speech. As for the Ledwinka concepts in question, they had to do with engine design and were pretty far removed from the basic concept of a people’s car. In any case, Ledwinka and Porsche were both addressing issues popularized by Ganz long before Hitler came to power.
Porsche, like most clever people, was a sponge. As musicians say, artists steal and hacks copy.
That’s not the same as stealing the design, although it could lead to patent infringment on certain details.
Most inventors would consider infringing on their patents to be the equivalent of theft. Ledwinka and Tatra certainly considered Porsche/VW to have stolen their ideas. Their litigation survived the Third Reich and wasn’t settled till 1961.
Throughout the history of automotive development, designers have looked at what others are doing, using the good ideas, rejecting others. I’ve never heard of this refered to as “stealing a design”.
The great Colin Chapman is credited with designing the “Chapman strut” rear suspension, but everybody who knows about Lotus knows he just took a Macpherson strut design and moved it to the back of the car.
and throwing in the Nazi/Jew angle is deplorable.
How is it deplorable? Did Porsche not work for the Nazis? Was Ganz not a Jew?
I’m not responsible for the headline – that’s an editorial decision. The article specifically downplayed Ganz’ Jewish heritage. I only mentioned it in the article once, in connection with his arrest by the Gestapo. Should I have not mentioned the fact that Ganz was Jewish? Maybe it’s lazy writing but I think it would have been negligent to not mention it in light of how closely linked Hitler and the Volkswagen were/are.
The only other references to Ganz being a Jew were a direct quote from Paul Schilperoord explaining his reasons for writing the book, and a citation of the book’s title, which refers to Ganz as a “Jewish genius”.
Why is it “deplorable” for me to mention the fact that Ganz was a Jew? It’s a historical fact. The historical truth is that the Nazis tried to rewrite erasing automotive history, erasing the role that Jews played in the development of the automobile. Before WWII, Friedrich Markus, not Benz and Daimler, was acknowledged by Austrians as the father of the automobile. Markus was the first person to use a gasoline powered engine to drive a four wheel vehicle. That was in 1870, almost two decades before Benz’ and Daimler’s motor cars. To be sure, Markus’ vehicle was not a practical automobile, and it’s not clear if he ever ran his second, greatly improved, car that he built contemporaneously with Benz’ and Daimler’s work, but before the Nazis took over Austria, Markus’ role in the development of the automobile was well known, along with his invention of magneto ignition and a carburettor.
There was at least one statue of Markus in Vienna and the technical university in Vienna had a memorial plaque to Markus at its entrance. Both memorials to Markus were destroyed by the Nazis in 1938 when Germany annexed Austria.
Schilperoord is only trying to restore automotive pioneers like Ganz and Markus to their rightful role in automotive history.
Methinks thou dost try to defend the honor of someone who served the Nazis just a bit too much.
Here’s a fascinating story about an Jewish inventor/executive hounded out of Germany, whose amazing accomplishments were long unknown, while others took credit for his ideas:
http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/newsandevents/events/ias03242006
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/goldberg.html
hmmm seems that an economical and popular car was in the air in the thirties about everywhere :
Pierre-Jules Boulanger’s early 1930s design brief, (after a pioneering market research survey done by Jacques Duclos), was to be astonishingly radical for the time, was for a low-priced, rugged “umbrella on four wheels” that would enable two peasants to drive 100 kg (220 lb) of farm goods to market at 60 km/h (37 mph), in clogs and across muddy unpaved roads if necessary. France at that time had a very large rural population, who had not yet adopted the automobile, due to its cost. The car would use no more than 3 litres of gasoline to travel 100 km (90MPG). Most famously, it would be able to drive across a ploughed field without breaking the eggs it was carrying. Boulanger later also had the roof raised to allow him to drive while wearing a hat.
uh, about Porshe seems that I wasn’t precise enough, In November 1945 after the war, Porsche was asked to continue the design of the Volkswagen in France and to move the factory equipment there as part of war reparations. Differences within the French government and objections from the French automotive industry put a halt to this project before it had even begun. On 15 December 1945, French authorities arrested Porsche, Anton Piëch, and Ferry Porsche as war criminals
uh, one could say that some manufacturers had interest to complicate his life, as so in Germany and in France
During the German occupation of France during World War II, Michelin (Citroën’s main shareholder) and Citroën managers decided to hide the TPV project from the Nazis, fearing some military application. Several TPVs were buried at secret locations, one was disguised as a pickup, and the others were destroyed, and Boulanger had the next six years to think about more improveme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citro%C3%ABn_2CV
Ronnie,
Thanks for the reply – I am indeed impressed by your encyclopedic knowledge of automotive design. Thanks also for clarifying that you were not responsible for the offensive title. Do you not understand that your entire premise was tainted at the outset by that? Paul Schilperoord has no such excuse, you know what his take is, and in my opinion, well, you know.
On a historical note, (h)itler was pure evil, but how could he have had anything to do with “stealing” Ganz’s work? Name any Ganz innovation that wasn’t already being used by others prior to (h)itler coming into power in 1933. The future can’t change the past. Ganz is certainly not responsible for the concept of the people’s car, that was all Ford. If Ganz had never lived, (h)itler would still have issued his call for the KdF-wagon, Ledwinka pitched the idea to Tatra in 1921, but they wanted to work the high end of the market. It was an obvious, common idea.
If the premise is that Ganz was a talented designer, ignored by history, because he was (J)ewish and German in the mid 1930s, OK, and that’s a shame, it should be rectified. If you indeed want to go further and say that he was responsible for several important innovations that contributed to the design of the VW and other similiar cars in the ’30, doubtless that is the case. But when you say that the he, not Porsche, designed the Beetle, and that it was stolen from him, I feel the need to comment (at length). Given your automotive background, you know what is involved in the engineering of a car and it’s manufacturing processes. Ganz did not design the beetle, period.
The Beetle’s design was ingenious in so many details, details that were not in evidence in Standard superior, although, in certain aspects, perhaps that can’t be said for the Tatra T97. I just don’t accept the idea that were it not for (h)ilter and the evil Ferdinard Porsche, deadheads would be driving standard superiors yet today, which is what the title seems to imply.
Am I motivated to defend Dr. Porsche? You bet, I happen to agree with many others that he was the Car Engineer of the Century. When you look back over his career and the number of huge innovations, he deserves the honor. The first petrol/electric hybrid at the turn of last century? If Ganz designed the beetle, I guess Porsche designed the Prius (a future article perhaps?).
Porsche was never a Nazi, but after the war, the French jailed him for over a year and half, without trial, to keep him out of the Car business. He was cleared of being a Nazi collaborator, but of course he lost his fortune. Ganz wasn’t the only guy who suffered as a result of Nazis.
You’re giving Hitler credit for making a speech advocating a “volkswagen” at the same auto show where Standard was displaying Ganz’ “Superior Volkswagen”, already in production and on sale
I’m not giving (h)itler credit for anything, as I said previously it was a common idea, Ford was using the phrase a decade and half earlier, but in English of course. If(h)ilter stole the phrase from Ganz, why didn’t he steal the car itself immediately, it was right there, wasn’t it? A particularly weak point in the entire premise.
“Porsche apparently admitted that he had been “looking over Ledwinka’s shoulder”, because Hilter said that was the kind of car he after.”
Hitler had nothing to do with that. To begin with, even Porsche’s defenders claim that he was working on small car prototypes (Zundapp Type 12, NSU Type 32) before Hitler’s 1933 speech
We are speaking of Ledwinka’s work on the Tatra T97, it was under development at the same time Porsche was working on the KdF-wagon. Hitler wanted a car like the earlier Tatra’s and Ledwinka was working on the T97. Another historical note, The German army banned their officers from driving Tatras during the war, they were fast and oversteered badly. Too bad they didn’t have enough for everybody.
It’s picky to quibble about spelling, so I haven’t said anything about your other misspellings
Thanks, only a-holes try to score points just because someone isn’t the best writer in the world. I’m am envious of your writing ability.
It’s interesting that you capitalized Nazi but neglected to capitalize Jew.
Perhaps I spoke too soon, please see note 3 of the posting gudelines (3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.) I have several friends that are Jewish, but not a single one that is a Nazi. If you haven’t been paying attention, I’ve been the one that didn’t care for the whole race/nationality aspect of the article.
So, because Porsche was a gifted engineer he wasn’t capable of moral shortcomings? Remember, we’re talking about a man who used slave laborers in his factory. He was willing to take ideas from Ledwinka, and he was willing to design weapons for the Nazis, but he was too moral to steal from a Jew?
Porsche was a great engineer. He was also arguably history’s most amoral engineer, putting his talent to the service of a heinous regime.
Porsche never owned or operated a factory, he had a design bureau. Did he work on several tank designs for the Nazi? Sure, what would you have done in his place? Refused? If, so you’re a braver man than me, or Porsche, apparently. He was never a Nazi, and was cleared of having been a collaborator.
At the end of the day,(h)ilter could have appropriated Ganz’s design for the Standard Superior anytime he want to, but he didn’t. He wanted something much better and Porsche delivered it. Given the number of Standard Superiors sold something tells me that that thing wasn’t quite where it needed to be on the old supply & demand curves.
I had never heard of Ganz or his automotive contributions, his story deserves to be told. I don’t think that is necessary to cut down Porsche in order to do so. Frankly the story could be told much more effectively by showing how his “automotive visions” influenced the work of one of history’s great designers and history’s most enduring automotive designs.
Having reread your article, perhaps my beef is more with whoever came up with that title and with Mr. Schilperoord’s approach to the Ganz story. To this day, there are those, particulary in Europe, who try to take the credit from the Wright brothers.
BTW, swingarm axles and trailing arm, torsion bar fronts are very much alive today in off road racing. The strength of the swingarm axles far outweighs the camber problem, the tires aren’t going to sit all that square in that terrian anyway. The trailing arms have the unique property of not only moving up and down, they swing back and away, which cushions the impact and helps to climb over whatever they hit. Those features, with the rear engine, are why there are dune buggies and sand rails. VWs were more than cute.
Hugo,
Thanks for the kind words. Hope to see you in Chicago or at the NAIAS if you come to the D in January.
Marie Claude,
Did you know that the Citroen and Michelin companies had Jewish connections? Andre Citroen was Jewish, the grandson of a rabbi I believe. His funeral procession was led by the chief rabbi of Paris. The Michelin family is now Catholic but is of Jewish descent.
Re #25/Ronnie Schreiber: [...] The Miata is a special case. Tom Matano, who drew the original Miata for Mazda, was told by his bosses at Mazda to base the exterior design on that of the Lotus Elan. [...] The Miata is more homage than thievery. [...]
Heh – immitation as the sincerest form of flattery… oh, well I buy, it. Miata after all is pretty car, despite of those horrible leadlights lids – I’m wondering why Matano didn’t go for… I had once a tiny Opel GT, with some round jars as headlights… awful direction, bad brakes, yet I loved it.
And by the way, since Marie-Claude is around, the 2 CV is a fun ride too – and take this from someone who knows what a Trabant is.
For Citroen, I heard he was of jewish origin, but none mention it in the everyday life, as his family was well integrated since Napoleon times, they frenchised their name, probably also converted to catholiscim as they were invited by Napoleon.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Citro%C3%ABn
(in french, the english link is to light)
For Michelin, never heard of that, if you could give me some more infoS.
Apparently, even the Nazi ignored it !
Alceste, you could never ride a DS
15. misanthropicus:
RE #10/biblio44: [...] Henry Ford and Hitler shared a lot of concepts. [...]
viblio44: (viblio is not a typo, I just condensed the stupidest trolls I ever met, vivo and Bbibio44, in one name)…
Yeah, I knew it. Misantrópico is obsessed with me. I give him nightmares during the daytime. His postings are derelict. His viblio idea is so hilarious only HE can laugh hysterically. I don’t even want to think what he does at night. Typical behavior of a stalker.
“It’s possible that Porsche came to the same conclusions independently of Ganz. Porsche, Ledwinka, and Ganz all were working on small car projects in the early 1930s and it’s possible that they all looked over each other’s shoulders.”
Typical Pajamas story: the simple truth hidden in the middle of theories and assumptions that lead nowhere.
Upon further reflection, I have decided that part of my reaction was due to the title of the article, which was intented to be controversial, in order to create interest. If I ask myself what title I would use, I can’t think of one less inflamatory to those who, like myself, think highly of Dr. Porsche’s abilities, while not being terribly boring.
There were several designers who were working on similiar projects at that point in history, and all of these shared the same basic concepts. Who originated these concepts? It’s impossible to say with certainty, however concepts are not the same as a design, they are simply the starting point for one.
Any competent designer makes himself familiar with the work of his competition, and adopts the best ideas, without violating any legal protections of intellectual property. It is a fact that automotive firms have shops in which they carefully disassemble cars built by their competition, in order to evaluate the design, and gain whatever knowledge is available. Many a meeting takes place to determine how to use certain design features, without incurring patent violation. Sometimes a court later disagrees that they have successfully done so. While engineering design involves a great deal of creativity, and in my mind, is an art form, it is not the role of a designer to create a unique work of art. The task is execute a design that best meets the goals and requirements of the project.
In the case of the KdF-wagon, it is known that Hitler discussed the project with both Porsche and Ledwinka. For reasons unknown, Hitler awarded the commission to Porsche, although what he had in mind was something like the Tatras, designed by Ledwinka. The target sales price was to be far lower and the production quantity considerably higher.
Adolf Hitler had no respect for personal property, human life or national sovereignty. It isn’t realistic to believe that he cared about intellectual property rights either. Dr. Porsche had been commissioned to execute a design for Hitler, and had discussed the design criteria with him at length. Given the nature of these conversations, it is almost inevitable that certain “existing” design features were the discussed. Doubtlessly Porsche was informed that patent infringement was a legal issue and that Hilter was the law.
Porsche created an excellent design for a car that was sophisticated, yet simple. For it’s time, it set the high water mark in terms of price/perfomance. Porsche deserves recognition for this accomplishment, but credit for the concepts embodied in design rightly belong to others as well. The KdF-wagon built on the work of Ledwinka and Ganz and an accurate history should acknowledge that.