Made in Auschwitz as a selling point???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sharps '63 said:
Name the firearm, weapon that has not caused "pain and suffering for others" somewhere at some time. They also put an end to the users of some of those "dirty" weapons.
Click to expand...

My argument is an odd one, I'll grant that much. My position is based on perhaps a flawed morality. Nonetheless, and as an example, I have zero issues collecting Lee Enfield rifles I am confident that the rifle itself was never used to oppress/destroy an unarmed noncombatant. At the same time I recognize the fire bombings allied forces undertook over Germany killing untold noncombatants. I justify that action in two ways; firstly, it was Germany who initiated firebombings of citizenry as early as WW1 and continued to develop the technology through WW2. Secondly, these noncombatants (German) were the enemy. They were Nazi's who had supported that regime with no indications that the German policy was going to be restricted or reversed on its own, or under its own accord. Therefore, their destruction is somehow justified in my mind.
I cannot justify (to myself, I'm not passing judgement on those who do collect.) owning a rifle that is linked through proper provenance to having been in the hands of a guard at any of these German death camps...similarly, I can't justify owning collecting a Samurai sword. It is a fact, that these weapons are "tested" on human beings who could not defend themselves.(the blades, not the Gewher's)
Would a wallet made in a death camp (Buchenwald) with an interesting tattoo in the leather be worth collecting? I have no doubt. I for one would wish to see it put to rest with its true and original owner. That is a more fitting end to the ever living history rather than having some sorry individuals mortal remains being past about among the collectors and money changers of this world. Just further insult to injury in my mind. Clearly, your mileage varies?
 
What if those Enfields were used to oppress the people of British India?! Or used to quell an uprising of the general populace anywhere else in the British Empire?

I get that you and others don't want to collect Teutonic and Nipponese weapons of war for various reasons.... But you should just say that you don't want to collect them because you don't like Krauts or Japs or their stuff, not because of some flawed justification.

Anyway, I prefer that people don't collect them, leaves more Mausers for me!! :)

PS: the Soviets killed and persecuted many members of my grandfathers family, but I still collect Soviet weapons and Militaria. Heck, I have more Soviet weapons than any other countries weapons I collect combined!
 
The Brits used the Long Lee-Enfield against the Boers. They incarcerated the wives and children of the Boers in the belief that it would weaken the resolve to fight. Instead, the women and children suffered badly and many died of sickness and malnutrition. This had the effect of strengthening the resolve to resist amongst the Boers.

In other words, the Brits invented the concentration camp as a weapon of war.

Anyone out there going to sell off his Long Lee-Enfield as a result? If so, I'm in the market. "We're marching to Pretoria, .....".
 
Last edited:
Desert_Fox said:
What if those Enfields were used to oppress the people of British India?! Or used to quell an uprising of the general populace anywhere else in the British Empire?

I get that you and others don't want to collect Teutonic and Nipponese weapons of war for various reasons.... But you should just say that you don't want to collect them because you don't like Krauts or Japs or their stuff, not because of some flawed justification.

Anyway, I prefer that people don't collect them, leaves more Mausers for me!! :)

PS: the Soviets killed and persecuted many members of my grandfathers family, but I still collect Soviet weapons and Militaria. Heck, I have more Soviet weapons than any other countries weapons I collect combined!
Click to expand...

My justifications are not flawed. I'll collect what I want to collect, reasons being mine and mine alone...You can collect whatever you wish to collect. Shrunken heads for all I care.
 
Sharps '63 said:
The Brits were used the Long Lee-Enfield against the Boers. They incarcerated the wives and children of the Boers in the belief that it would weaken the resolve to fight. Instead, the women and children suffered badly and many died of sickness and malnutrition. This had the effect of strengthening the resolve to resist amongst the Boers.

In other words, the Brits invented the concentration camp as a weapon of war.

Anyone out there going to sell off his Long Lee-Enfield as a result? If so, I'm in the market. "We're marching to Pretoria, .....".
Click to expand...

You seem to be overlooking the whole genocide aspect of the Fascist Germans...so, I really don't know what else to say.
 
Last edited:
I'm not overlooking anything. The truth is that EVERY colonial empire and totalitarian regime has murdered untold numbers of both their own people and other nations/ethnic groups.
In other words - ALL types of surplus military arms have been dipped in human blood at one time or another.
 
Sharps '63 said:
I've seen pieces of the rope that was allegedly used to hang Louis Riel, one in the rcmp Depot Museum in Regina. Also a rifle casing from the firing squad (his request) execution of an American nut bar a couple of decades ago. I find these items a little too grisly for my taste.

I understand that there is a market for lampshades and other items made of human skin from concentration camp victims. This is over the top macabre.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that kind of leaves the fine line between collector and sicko in the dust.....

I'm all for keeping items from the world wars around though. ESPECIALLY if there's some serious provenance. Not for any macabre reason, but it has a helluva lot more impact when you put an object in someone's hand and explain where it's been and what it might have done. Lest we forget and all....

In my eyes, collecting items with swastikas and whatnot made 1945 and earlier is fine. Collecting items with swastikas and whatnot on them made after 1945, not cool. Not cool at all.....

Which reminds me of a buddy with a small collection. His mother went through a midlife crisis and travelled to Sturgis for the biker rally. She brought him home a switchblade with a very large swastika on both sides.....new in box. For the life of her, she couldn't understand why that was very, very bad but WWII relics were OK to keep in the house.....
 
Sharps '63 said:
I'm not overlooking anything. The truth is that EVERY colonial empire and totalitarian regime has murdered untold numbers of both their own people and other nations/ethnic groups.
In other words - ALL types of surplus military arms have been dipped in human blood at one time or another.
Click to expand...

You are missing it (the point). Milsurp collectors, including yours truly have no issue with "human blood" as you put it. The point of contention is who's blood, and under what context. You sir are losing the context. There's no honour in genocide. There's no honour in the murder of old women and young children. I collect things that I respect, these other things I mention hold zero respect for me...in my eyes, they are worthless.
 
There is a auction i dont participate in now, since they sold SS stuff. Not so much that they sold it, but the reaction when i phoned to pay for my stuff and mentioned it. I have owned a bunch of sporter M98, but wont have one with a dirty bird. Someone was selling a prohib last week, advertised as the same type gun used to shoot Reagan.
 
So you can't justify buying a 70 year old tool but you can justify killing German civilians because 8 years before they elected the government that started the war?
Keep lecturing us on monsters.
 
The Germans started the war, but it is the English who are responsible for making it a world war by continuing the conflict after 1941 when peace almost happened.
So you would support the killing of English civilians too? Since the final solution was not started yet, you can't say that the Germans were monsters or etc. If you support the murdering of one side you have to admit that it is justified on the other side too.
Also you are wrong that the Germans started the bombings of civilians, the English started it. Hitler refused to retaliate for 3 months because he was hoping for an Alliance with the British. Only after he realized it wasn't going to happen did he allow retaliation on English civilians.
 
Sir Plus said:
The Germans started the war, but it is the English who are responsible for making it a world war by continuing the conflict after 1941 when peace almost happened.
So you would support the killing of English civilians too? Since the final solution was not started yet, you can't say that the Germans were monsters or etc. If you support the murdering of one side you have to admit that it is justified on the other side too.
Also you are wrong that the Germans started the bombings of civilians, the English started it. Hitler refused to retaliate for 3 months because he was hoping for an Alliance with the British. Only after he realized it wasn't going to happen did he allow retaliation on English civilians.
Click to expand...

Neville is that you?

If peace almost happened, it would have been only for the Germans to have time to deal with the Soviets. He would not have stopped short of ....well controlling everything.
 
Sir Plus said:
The Germans started the war, but it is the English who are responsible for making it a world war by continuing the conflict after 1941 when peace almost happened.
So you would support the killing of English civilians too? Since the final solution was not started yet, you can't say that the Germans were monsters or etc. If you support the murdering of one side you have to admit that it is justified on the other side too.
Also you are wrong that the Germans started the bombings of civilians, the English started it. Hitler refused to retaliate for 3 months because he was hoping for an Alliance with the British. Only after he realized it wasn't going to happen did he allow retaliation on English civilians.
Click to expand...

You probably should read a few history books there. The Germans targeted civilians long before there was ANY Allied bombing of non military targets in Germany. They bombed Warsaw, they bombed Rotterdam etc. The later Allied bombing of German cities was done on a scale that dwarfed any German bombing simply because the Germans lacked the ability and large bombers to do so. The German V1 and V2 rockets were solely an effort to terrorize the general population in a like manner. The whole "total war" approach on both sides was morally bankrupt and neither side can claim moral high ground in that regard. That's what happens in war, just about the lowest level that human beings can descend to.
 
Lots of emotional people here. It is an object. You sound like the Wendy's and Heidi's of this world giving objects a personality. It is like the guy a while back who just had to sellhis ppk because of who owned it.
 
What do you mean by everything? The only thing Hitler ever meant to conquer was Eastern Europe. Everything else was a distraction from that goal that he did not welcome.
 
You're being the equivalent of a grammar nazi here, not very productive. You're not even arguing, just nitpicking at colloquialisms.
The bombing of cities wasn't a new thing, but the systematic razing of cities from the air was a thing invented by the allies. Just look at the magnitude of the bombings on Germany compared to the magnitude of German bombing raids. It's a difference of 10 to 1.
For all the fuss we make about the bombing of London, it looked small compared to what the Germans received every night.
 
I have a different point of view BECAUSE I read a lot about the history, instead of watching the same overly simplified documentaries everyone has seen. What I said is not that Germans never targeted civilians, but that those bombings weren't out of line with other historical bombings, like Frederick II bombing Dresden, and countless examples of artillery being used on cities. I said that the escalation of civilian targeting to a whole new level was started by the British government.
Some people can't accept that Hitler was initially holding back because he was hoping for peace with his western neighbors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom