Fake British WWII passport for Hitler

Discuss

24 Responses to “Fake British WWII passport for Hitler”

  1. RodPN says:

    Looks fake..
    that’s the most common picture of Hitler

    • semiotix says:

      Looks fake..

      I can tell from the penstrokes, and from having seen quite a few faked passports for genocidal tyrants in my time.

  2. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Distinguishing features: only one, big ball.

  3. Nick Chaiyachakorn says:

    Nice to see those date stampers haven’t changed since World War II. You can still buy stamps with a font that’s virtually alike, I swear…

  4. LogrusZed says:

    Same people who did Obama’s birf cert.

  5. puufuu says:

    Two grammar mistakes in the handwritten part though. I hope their actual forged documents were better ;-).

    • I believe mistakes are an important part of making a document look legitimate.

      • the two mistakes (schwarze instead of schwarz & kleine instead of kleiner) actually seem rather suspicious as they are very obvious to a native speaker. I’d agree that a spelling error here or there could be beneficial for a fake, mistakes like these however are very common for non-natives – not something to go for when faking a document. hope they did better on their real stuff ;D

      • trieste says:

        This was in 1941. These mistakes were soon caught to the chagrin of the British as cries of “They are merciless about grammar, Nazis!” echoed down the corridors of the SOE. 

        And that’s why we use the phrase today.

      • puufuu says:

        Even mistakes a native speaker would never ever make? We’re not talking less than perfect spelling here, this is basic stuff that looks horribly wrong. They just didn’t bother to run it by somebody with a decent command of German.

        • mguffin says:

          Hey Johnny Chuckles, don’t for heaven’s sake let the overall fun of the fake get in the way of some lumpen pedantry or who know wot grammatical and speling kaos mite Nsue

          • puufuu says:

            Thanks to a constant generous supply of electrons, we can both be delighted by this _and_  comment that the quality of this ‘proof of concept’ would not have cut it in the real world. Imagine that!

            (I still ‘liked’ your comment though.)

          • mguffin says:

            On reflection, I was gracelessly commenting prior to replenishing my own personal supply of morning caffeine electrons hence grouchy lack of resultant generosity in comment. I withdraw the JC and the ‘lumpen p’.

      • AirPillo says:

        Those particular mistakes are more of a shibboleth than a good forger would be comfortable with making on purpose.

  6. hadlockk says:

    The passport also describes Hitler’s occupation as a ‘painter’.

    It’s worth pointing out that Hitler’s occupation was originally a sign painter before he became a politician through the democratic process. One of the 99%-ers, so to speak ;)

  7. Andrew Kay says:

     You can immediately tell that it’s fake, because that photo would never be approved for a passport. He should be facing the camera, against an evenly-lit background.

  8. Jesse in Japan says:

    That’s an obvious fake.

    Everyone knows that the Foreign Office in 1941 would NEVER have granted a Jew an entry permit for Palestine.

  9. retepslluerb says:

    He actually was born as Hitler. It was his father, Alois, who was born out of wedlock, but he took his father’s name – so it’s not that Alois  didn’t have a “legitimate claim”, whatever that’s supposed to mean – before Adolf was born.

    Where does this strange obsession with the Schicklgruber-name come from? We usually don’t go around and refer to Dschugaschwili, Clay or Ciccone, either.  Or John. F. Fitzgerald, for that matter.

    • puufuu says:

      Two reasons, at least in Austria (where Hitler is from):

      - Many people avoid saying Hitler’s name if possible. All kinds of substitutes exist; basically anything that does not have as many horrible connotations will do.
      - “Schicklgruber” just sounds funny. It’s a pretty common (though underhanded) way of mocking him.

      • retepslluerb says:

        Why would I not want those horrible connotations? He’s Adolf Hitler, few chrissakes. I *want* people to understand that he is one of the most horrible person in history, especially us Germans and Austrians.

        I also find the mockery pointless. It’s a good way during war, builds morale and all that, but afterwards?

        But perhaps it’s just my pedantry kicking in here – and I so do hate diminutives.

        • puufuu says:

          You asked a question and got an answer. Disagree with it all you like but please, don’t shoot the messenger ;-).

          Also, to answer your first question: same reason you don’t swear in polite company.

        • Ian Wood says:

          Know who else hated diminutives?

        • pauldrye says:

          I also find the mockery pointless. It’s a good way during war, builds morale and all that, but afterwards?

          I think that’s the ultimate revenge against Hitler — mockery, down to the end of history. He and the Nazis took themselves very seriously, what with all that historical destiny &^%$ and the like. Making fun of him, forever, goes exactly against what he wanted for himself in posterity.

          I’m reminded of the Groucho Marx’s request, while on tour of immediate post-war Berlin, to stop at the site of the Führerbunker. He proceeded to literally dance the Charleston on Hitler’s grave.

          (Thus cementing my opinion that Groucho’s the coolest man in history.)

  10. ntinnyc says:

    It’s not meant to be analyzed to death; the first paragraph clearly says the Brits created it as a joke. Sheesh.

Leave a Reply