Can the dismantling of Third Reich artifacts for research purposes be justified?

[HPL2008]

On a side note: while I see the relevance of the new avatar (at least I think I do) I kinda liked the previous one a little better.

Indeed. Cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate, his former visage, no mere veneer of vanity, was a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished.

(On another side note: What's with the mystery of his ever-changing age?)

I guess the next logical question would be, Were there Real HJ gold badges?

Although heavily faked and reproduced, there is no doubt that these badges as such existed.

This is proven by period documentation, such as an entry and illustration in Dr. Doehle's period book "Die Auszeichnungen des Großdeutschen Reiches"*) or period photographs of the badge, for example in wear by Robert Ley and others or on Fritz Todt's funeral pillow.**).


*) "Das Goldene Hitler-Jugend-Ehrenzeichen in der Ausführung mit Eichenlaub verleiht der Reichsjugendführer in besonderen Fällen für Verdienste um die Hitler-Jugend." ["The Golden Hitler Youth Badge of Honor in the version with oakleaves is awarded by the Reichsjugendführer in special cases for merits rendered to the Hitler Youth"]

**) See here:
kalte_winter:
Ailsby Collection: Golden Hitler Youth Honour Badge with Oak Leaves

And how do you tell if the next one that you examine is genuine? You popped off the diamond and found the badge you had was glued together-so, if there was no way to know until you removed the diamond, how is anyone else to know what badge is genuine and which is not? The same would hold true if you had removed the diamond and found it to be a Genuine badge. Not to be at all insulting,as I'm not Intending to be, but what have you (and subsequently the rest of the hobby) learned by breaking up this fake badge? Is there someway now to tell if the badge a person is looking at is a glued fake or a genuine affixed diamond?

These points are valid, and I am looking forward to Jo's comments.

[Adrian]

So it seems there is no clear consensus on whether it is acceptable practice or not because everyone has varying opinions on what constitutes an 'artifact', 'piece of history' etc and therefore everyone's opinions on the treatment of such items is varied. With no clear agreement it is fair to say that each case needs to be taken on merit.

Is it wrong for a person to dismantle an award or decoration for the purposes of research but not for palaeontologists to slice up dinosaur bones for carbon dating and further research into climate and diet? Why is it acceptable for archaeologists to dig up human remains and put the bodies and grave goods on display for our collective curiosity yet not acceptable for a visor cap to be unstitched and taken apart to learn construction techniques?

Research has to be taken on many levels and there is no right or wrong answer to this debate, only differing opinions by different people depending on their own take on the posed question and how they view these 'pieces of history'. As in all walks of life there are gamblers and risk takers and also those who are conservative, serious and staid.

[Jo Rivett]

(On another side note: What's with the mystery of his ever-changing age?)

An old school habit, to get into the Friday night disco at age 7, you had to say you were 18 I guess old habits die hard.
This actually started with my Grandfather in 1917, who lied about his age so that he could take part in the the Great War. I saw that there was a "Grandfather" thread on this forum, so i`ll upload a pic of him at some time.

In order to keep things on track, the best way that i can think of doing this, is to make use of the "ignore list" function. So if i dont reply to anyones posts in future, it simply means that i cant read them, thats all.

In order to keep everyone else on track, the debate that Adrian started here, is titled " Can the dismantling of Third Reich artifacts for research purposes be justified?"
For research purposes..... for individuals like me, to learn more. There are no artifacts that you NEED, to physically ruin, take apart, damage, in order to find out whether the item was genuine, that is nonsense, and although my posts here are crystal clear on this issue, there are still boat-rockers who are twisting my posts. So for the very last time, i am unaware of any Third Reich item that needs to be "broken" in order to evaluate it.

[Adrian]

I will reiterate the point of the discussion is to discuss the thread title in general, not to 'have a go' at a single member because his views are different to yours.

Explanations have been made, comments have been posted. Whether or not you agree with them is up to the individual but please don't keep asking the same questions but with the words in a different order. Agree to disagree but if you have nothing new to add to the discussion, please refrain from posting.

If there is a specific question you feel is unanswered, please post it in a direct manner and don't hide it in other dialogue where it can be missed.

[Adrian]

Just to bring a slightly different facet to the discussion, I wonder to all those members who are against the dismantling of 'artifacts' for the purpose of research -

Do you object to vintage WW2 era planes being flown purely for our entertainment when there is every opportunity for them to fall out of the sky and be destroyed as has happened on several occasions in recent years?

If the debate is over the destruction of 'pieces of history' and their preservation, surely these bigger, more expensive, rarer and irreplaceable 'artifacts' should be wrapped in cotton wool and never be flown?

[youthcollector1]

really? could you please elaborate on that one then?

please dont say burn or black light test...

?? Read my prior post, I will message you, too. I said I do Not use the burn test. As for the black light test, I've used it to search for evidence of past insignia, such as breast eagles or cufftitles, but not for the glow as it is not full proof. Chemicals can cause cloth to glow, while fakers have used period cloth to produce reproductions. However, I have yet to mention this in this thread.
Speaking of this thread, it is now going in circles with the occasional addition of the, with if, or how about this. As I've said, this is a grey issue, such are many things in life, and not unlike politics, nobody here is going to change their oppositions opinion. I will respectfully agree to disagree as I think all points from both sides have been stated, and nothing positive will result from myself reiterating my stance.

[StefanM]

Just to bring a slightly different facet to the discussion, I wonder to all those members who are against the dismantling of 'artifacts' for the purpose of research -

Do you object to vintage WW2 era planes being flown purely for our entertainment when there is every opportunity for them to fall out of the sky and be destroyed as has happened on several occasions in recent years?

If the debate is over the destruction of 'pieces of history' and their preservation, surely these bigger, more expensive, rarer and irreplaceable 'artifacts' should be wrapped in cotton wool and never be flown?

Almost everything can remanufactured and probably has been to restore these great vintage aircraft to flying condition in the first place. I personally wouldn't fly them but then again I would have missed out on hearing that wonderful Merlin engine in a BoB Spitfire and the thunder of a Lancaster flying overhead.

[Adrian]

That is true but also once the amalgamation of original and new parts has crashed into the ground, what remaining historical parts remaining are then beyond use and are rendered into scrap metal so why not just fly replica aircraft and keep the original condition ones behind glass.

[davejb]

I'm not sure you can really compare the two situations, bearing in mind that on a great number of occasions crashes have been put down to pilot error, either the one flying or another aircraft whose maneuvers have resulted in mid air collisions or on the ground, on a regular occasion a Dragon Rapide flys over my house, this aircraft has been flying for the last 70 odd years without any incidents , of course there are crashes that have been put down to stresses on the airframes, engine failures, but this can happen to much newer aircraft and has done so,can we say that rare tanks should'nt be driven because engines can blow up and the parts will eventually become unavailable or gears shred and no replacements can be found .Also there is the point that if these aircraft were to be cotton woolled as such , just how many people would have access to rare pieces when they might not even be in that particular persons country, even Mark Hanna was performing aerobatics when he crashed and was killed ,you could say that he was over stressing the airframe but this also happened during wartime so where do we draw the line

[Jo Rivett]

How about Mummies
Like that Austrian Ötzi 4000 year old tattooed mountain man mummy, that many specialists have been allowed to inspect, take tissue samples of... and the Egyptian mummies too.
Getreu dem motto: Ir order to better understand, a finger must be sacrificed or a toe....



But away from smelly old mummies now and back to Third Reich treasures..... What about zinc items? Zinc awards, badges... because no matter what you think, they are slowly disintegrating before our eyes, and in a few hundred years will have turned to powder. Would an interested party be allowed to take one of those apart - for the greater good of history - or would he also have the skin peeled off his back and sewn to his face on this issue?