Relics and grave robbing

[Totenhead]

I don't really think there's much to argue about there...

What I find interesting about this whole fear of relics being brought out of graves/taken off of corpses is that this relic state equipment is frequently frowned upon all the time for these very reasons while, on the other hand, it seems totally legit to show off helmets in a non-relic state with blood stains etc.
Most actually seem to think that traces of blood "adds" to the helmet... and this is not only about the ones with blood stains --- I mean, how many of these helmets (talking non-relic here of course) were taken off of dead enemy soldiers shortly after the kill? IMO there's no real reason to differentiate between the relics and non-relics when it comes to the fear of any of this equipment having come off of a corpse... it's all very likely in both scenarios if you ask me.

I don't think anyone on here would want to dispute that digging up a corpse, stripping it off its equipment and then throwing away the bones as if they were garbage is an appalling act.
I do however think that there's this kind exaggerated fear of this having happened when it comes to the relics as opposed to the 100% OK/"squeaky clean" attitude displayed towards just about all of the ones in a non-relic state. I mean, rust/no liner --- doesn't really equal "gravedigging"... it just mean that it has been in the ground for a number of years as opposed to helmets that were possibly picked right off of the dead bodies before the battlefield was "cleaned up" after the battle.

Lots of nuances in there and everything... I just wanted to highlight this one aspect of the whole thing in the interest of objective/mature discussion

Well said, i also think i made this point in post 8, perhaps upon reflection i was a little too succinct !

[Totenhead]

I would feel bad about ever owning a blood stained helmet liner, at least with relics you can always kid yourself the item was lost, thrown away or left after capture etc.

Sorry, I do not understand that comment? Personally I am interested in the conflict as a whole, a world changing event, history, our past, a defining moment in time. I am not however interested in the macabre, I would not glorify an item because it may be blood stained, although I am sure there are people out there who get off on that type of thing.

But on the other hand I would not be so naive as to think these items were merely cast offs, if one cannot accept the fact that these items were involved in death and destruction then one should collect army surplus,...give me a good combat worn item over some surplus item that’s been sat on a shelf for 60 years anytime, to myself personally, it’s all about the history, holding it in ones hands
Surplus, shelf items just do not appeal

[Totenhead]

[QUOTE=relicz;669991]Here is the 1998 article I mentioned that was posted on GHW by Bob L as a nostalgic look at media articles about military collection and such. Not trying to stir the pot or rate the articles accuracy, just thought there may be some interest in how the media reports things.

Attachment 396075

Reparations????

[Glenn66]

Sorry, I do not understand that comment?

Really? Not so difficult to understand surely?

I collect military historica, both ground found relics and minty fresh examples of insignia, awards and helmets. I have no interest in collecting body parts or evidence of blood, brains, gore etc. Last year on the WAF a forum member felt compelled to declare that his blood stained helmet liner was 'cool'. Another thread had a member all excited because there was a skull fragment and lock of hair still encrusted to the shell of a relic lid. Such ghoulish values and comments disgust me.

Given the massive numbers of prisoners taken compared to casualties received and considering further that in general 4 WIA casualites were taken for every KIA on top of the fact that whenever possible the KIA's were recovered and removed for burial (the chaotic withdrawal scenario of course being an exception to this) then I think it is reasonable to assume that the majority of artifacts being found today were in fact abandoned, lost or discarded for one reason or another. Of course this does not preclude that fact that some of my relic items may have been taken from the bones of some forgotten KIA but I prefer to believe (due to my anti-grave and corpse robbing values) that my collectables originate from the alternative scenario of being lost/discarded before/during/after captulation.

Such is my preference and it gives me peace, I do not consider it naive and I will thank you to not lecture me on where and how I should collect.

[Totenhead]

Sorry Glenn was not lecturing you on what or what not you should collect.

My point was that these items are from a major conflict, so it’s inevitable that some of these items will have history of traumas. Personally I agree with you, boasting and becoming excited about blood stained items is not my thing, they also disgust me.

[slados28]

Lots of valid points being put forth here guys... good to see the discussion continuing on in a constructive and amicable manner. I feel I've said my piece and won't harp on over the same points but I do hope that people continue on contributing their thoughts on this issue

[Scout]

Really? Not so difficult to understand surely?

I collect military historica, both ground found relics and minty fresh examples of insignia, awards and helmets. I have no interest in collecting body parts or evidence of blood, brains, gore etc. Last year on the WAF a forum member felt compelled to declare that his blood stained helmet liner was 'cool'. Another thread had a member all excited because there was a skull fragment and lock of hair still encrusted to the shell of a relic lid. Such ghoulish values and comments disgust me.

Given the massive numbers of prisoners taken compared to casualties received and considering further that in general 4 WIA casualites were taken for every KIA on top of the fact that whenever possible the KIA's were recovered and removed for burial (the chaotic withdrawal scenario of course being an exception to this) then I think it is reasonable to assume that the majority of artifacts being found today were in fact abandoned, lost or discarded for one reason or another. Of course this does not preclude that fact that some of my relic items may have been taken from the bones of some forgotten KIA but I prefer to believe (due to my anti-grave and corpse robbing values) that my collectables originate from the alternative scenario of being lost/discarded before/during/after captulation.

Such is my preference and it gives me peace, I do not consider it naive and I will thank you to not lecture me on where and how I should collect.

Revolting and loathsome indeed.
I cant help thinking of a soldier from a patrol in the desert. He was hit by a fragment, which penetrated his kevlar helmet and into his brain. The thought of anybody gloating over his battle damaged helmet in that manner now or 60-70 years hence, fills me with nausea.