03-28-2011, 09:42 PM
03-28-2011 09:42 PM
03-30-2011, 05:51 PM
One again, thank-you for your translation, HPL. Although propaganda, there is a kernal of truth to the note about the foreigner's impression of german headwear. At that time, there simply was no other piece of cloth headgear that approached the German Schirmmuetze both in terms of aesthetics and quality. My (obviously biased) opinion is that it still holds true today.
In fact, I will go one step further and be so bold to state that the Sattelform visor was the most aesthetically pleasing piece of headgear of any country, any era.
03-30-2011, 09:04 PM
Yes indeed, many thanks for the translation! I envy those who can effortlessly read the UM, hopefully one day I'll be able to join the ranks too.
A lot of what I've translated so far for myself does smack of propaganda but it's being read out of context in a different era. German industry in the 1930's, especially the hat industry (which nearly disappeared completely) was feeling buoyant after a long period of decline but there's also the sense that they were still unsure of themselves in regards to trade and export. With the USA and UK dominating the industrial production and export of goods, no wonder Germany industrialists were fascinated with the success of these countries. They didn't want to be like the vulgar Americans and Brits but I'm sure they really wanted a big slice of the market.
If I had one question to ask these mutzenmachers in the 30's, it would be whether they think a war would be good for long term business or not!
03-30-2011, 09:44 PM
Correct. UM is not propaganda in the narrow sense that its editorial policy was directly controlled by Goebbels. It surely had propaganda heavy elements in it, like the article on Assmann on the early years of Nazi retailing in red Berlin and the like. But much of it is perfectly normal trade publication as one would find in many places. The Nazi elements come through in it, and since the well read coffee table book turns a totally blind eye to this aspect of the whole, I have pointed it out. But I would not want to over state it, either, other than how the cap maker fit into the Nazi economy and state bears analysis because his or her posture bears essentially no resemblance to the political economy of today.
I also do not think that the Sattelform cap much interested people at the time, other than it was an aspect of military fashion, and, in fact, one which WENT AGAINST THE REGULATIONS. The regulations followed fashion, and especially the breaking of regulation, which is among the most interesting aspects of UM is how it throws open the reality of these things versus some utterly sparse, incomplete and usually totally wrong assumptions as had by certain collectors based on maybe two to five hundred caps they might have seen. Read Plato's Republic on this score, as a matter of fact, as pertains to reality and shadows of reality.
UM did have the role of explaining the political economy of the time, it did have an aggressive racially motivated role of disenfranchising a minority, but these were the overall goals of the regime.
In any case, thanks to those here who have posted more material and translated it. In order to understand the translations, however, without imposing our own rather narrow and artificial agenda on this source, you need to know a lot more about German society, politics and culture in the early 20th century, which comes across very powerfully in this source.
As to the war, some would have welcomed it, and others would have been pretty doubtful of the outcome, as was generally the mood about same in September 1939.
03-30-2011, 10:20 PM
A very interesting point and prehaps we can explore it further?
The term "extramutze" to me at least usualy means a privately purchased cap outside and therefore not controlled by the Wehrmacht or SS uniform regulations yet many UM articules specifically discuss the extramutze. I've not had the time to translate them yet so cannot determine the nature of the discussions and prehaps I've totaly missunderstood the term so it would be interesting to hear thoughts of others regarding the subject.
03-30-2011, 10:54 PM
The Extramuetze was bought by the soldier for walking out, or whatever fancier orders of dress for a smart appearance to impress one's darling or parents or to pose in the portrait studio, when the issued cap had a stain on it, had been sweated up by someone or simply did not not look elegant. It did have follow regulation, de jure, but, de facto, it often did not. Wilkins tries to discuss this fact in his book, but does a lousy job of it. The UM speaks at length about non observance of regulations, military fashion and how soldiers embraced their own styles, habits, and breaking of the rules. Often these violations of regulations were later incorporated into regulations just the same--an insight altogether lacking on the maroon lunatic site.
The high crown was originally against the regulation, and it rose in height not as a leading indicator, but as a following indicator of how people wanted their caps to be. The UM authors mention this fact, and there were scholarly circles to analyze all the ways that military fashion had departed from the regulations in the past. Look under "Uniformkunde" as in the society for the study of uniforms, which still exists, actually. Extramuetze is counterpoised to a contract cap, or one (Kammerexemplar) issued from the Kleiderkammer within the quarter master or supply system of the armed forces or whatever agency of party and state. The Extramuetze was a highly profitable item for the readers of UM, granted the re institution of conscription and huge increase in the size of the Wehrmacht as well as other uniformed organizations. But Extramuetze refers mostly to the military. It must have also existed in earlier epochs that is, the old armies.
Last edited by Friedrich-Berthold; 03-31-2011 at 01:44 AM.
03-31-2011, 01:40 AM
04-01-2011, 09:28 PM
A fact very much overlooked nowadays by the self proclaimed collectors of just the regalia that adhere strickly to these regulations.
04-01-2011, 09:40 PM
04-01-2011, 09:45 PM