Kadet Posted January 4, 2015 Share #26 Posted January 4, 2015 That is a typical German unit-level war grave. He was probably buried by his unit members, and it was quite common to place the helmet on the grave, or sometimes nail it to the cross. These graves can be quite elaborate, and were often done for the "photo opportunity" value, i.e. a photo sent home to the man's family. Temporary is a relative term with German graves. As the Allies advanced across Russia, France and Germany, they all became temporary. Many were lost completely. There is a German war graves commission engaged full time in repatriating the remains of fallen German soldiers. There is a website with the KIA info for the soldiers they have records on. It is cumbersome to use, and in German of course...but it may be possible to get more info on the soldier. That said, why on on earth would a relative want such a gruesome relic? It is what it is at this point. At least there is a name associated with the helmet, unlike the vast majority of them. BTW, and to put it in context, a large number of the German combat helmets in collections today were actually removed from corpses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustin Posted January 4, 2015 Share #27 Posted January 4, 2015 Might I add this point, where do you think many souvenirs come from? is this any different than removing articles from a body lying there? Before people start freaking out this needs to be taken in context. What about Japanese officer swords and personal battle flags for example, were they just lying there innocently on the ground? Many of these "spoils of war" were taken in less than chivalric fashion. If it wasn't for the photo this would have received kudos across the board so anyone that wants to condemn the helmet take a look at and evaluate the bring backs in your collections and the possibilities of how they might have been obtained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strawberry 9 Posted January 5, 2015 Share #28 Posted January 5, 2015 Chances are very good that the majority of "souvenirs" either came from dead or wounded men. This one is a bit different though since it seemingly came, somehow, from a marked grave. Either way, I would have no problem having it in my collection at this point. Its better that it is preserved and appreciated rather than rusting away somewhere. Did she sell you the photo as well or did you get a scan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Finn Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share #29 Posted January 5, 2015 I have the original photo, which Mrs. Gatchell's husband took during the war, it came with the helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchcollector Posted January 5, 2015 Share #30 Posted January 5, 2015 Was away for awhile.Since a few have responded since my last post,I wanted to add some thoughts. First,this is an interesting topic,as it addresses a subject that is not commonly brought up by collectors.It's good to discuss and look at the different aspects of these issues. As I stated in my first post,I have mixed thoughts about this.I don't believe that I'm "freaking out" as one poster put it,when I bring up,and comment on the "other" side of this subject;namely,sensitivities and respect for the dead and their possessions.I realize that war is a brutal affair,and emotions run high after battle,leaving some to not dwell on the fact that they are basically looting corpses and gravesites,and so some pick up "souvenirs" to bring home.I know that not all soldiers did this,some were and are very much against it.I don't have a problem with taking weapons such as guns,knives,etc.. from the battlefield as these may fall into the wrong hands and be reused again.Items like helmets and other pieces of "battle" gear could fall into this category as well,so I have no problem with the taking of them.What would bother me is the looting of personal items,such as diaries,photos,jewelry,etc..as there is always the chance that these items could be collected and returned to the families of the dead.Now I must add this;I also believe that after someone is buried then their gravesite should remain undisturbed by "souvenir" hunters,and that would include a helmet that has been placed atop a marker.The symbol of the helmet on the grave marker has been used by many armies,ours included,and it is my opinion that respect for this tradition should be upheld by all.Now I want to address some of the points from the other posters:Cadet,thank you for elaborating on the "war grave" subject.I learned more about the process from your post.As for a family not wanting such a "gruesome relic" as the helmet,who knows,maybe they would want anything that belonged to their departed family member.I also do not have a problem with helmets and other gear(less personal effects) being taken from the battlefield dead before they have been buried.Dustin,I don't want to sound like a broken record,but I do feel that there is a difference between taking items pre,and post burial.Once someone has been buried,their gravesite should not be disturbed or plundered. strawberry 9,you raise a good point,but who is to say what would have become of the helmet?Perhaps a family member,or a loved one would have gotten it,but even if they didn't,I would rather see the helmet remain on the grave marker,out of respect, and rust away. Just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doyler Posted January 5, 2015 Share #31 Posted January 5, 2015 That is a typical German unit-level war grave. He was probably buried by his unit members, and it was quite common to place the helmet on the grave, or sometimes nail it to the cross. These graves can be quite elaborate, and were often done for the "photo opportunity" value, i.e. a photo sent home to the man's family. Temporary is a relative term with German graves. As the Allies advanced across Russia, France and Germany, they all became temporary. Many were lost completely. There is a German war graves commission engaged full time in repatriating the remains of fallen German soldiers. There is a website with the KIA info for the soldiers they have records on. It is cumbersome to use, and in German of course...but it may be possible to get more info on the soldier. That said, why on on earth would a relative want such a gruesome relic? It is what it is at this point. At least there is a name associated with the helmet, unlike the vast majority of them. BTW, and to put it in context, a large number of the German combat helmets in collections today were actually removed from corpses... Totally agree and was wanting to post the same.The Germans often used very elaborate markers and commonly decorated the grave area.I have seen various forms of the covered cross as posted as well as markers that look like the Iron or Maltese cross. As for sending the helmet to a relative Im thinking its not something they would embrace as such a personal item.Just like having a loved one killed in an auto accident.....would you really want the jacket or ball cap or item they were wearing back? I wouldnt. Possibly the family would like a copy of the photo of the marker itself to show their son wasnt lost or missing and never identified.The photo of the marker would be more treasured to them but still maybe unnerving showing the damaged helmet.Its hard to say. I see both sides of the discussion and can agree with many of the views.....pro and con. The helmet at some point would have been taken. But removing a dog tag or the marker itself I would find unforgivable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtA Posted January 5, 2015 Share #32 Posted January 5, 2015 When this M1 rifle was removed to be returned to an arms room, was the fallen soldier being disrespected??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wharfmaster Posted January 5, 2015 Share #33 Posted January 5, 2015 Judging by the stories told to me by dozens of WW2 vets, most German bringbacks were not taken off dead bodies. After the shooting stopped, there was literally mountains of (clean) Nazi gear laying around everywhere. W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearmon Posted January 5, 2015 Share #34 Posted January 5, 2015 Did a soldier remove the rifle and take it home for his collection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strawberry 9 Posted January 5, 2015 Share #35 Posted January 5, 2015 "strawberry 9,you raise a good point,but who is to say what would have become of the helmet?Perhaps a family member,or a loved one would have gotten it,but even if they didn't,I would rather see the helmet remain on the grave marker,out of respect, and rust away. Just my opinion." I agree with you. I meant having it my collection now as opposed to having it rust away in an attic or possibly being tossed in the trash. I agree, originally it would have been best left on the grave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtA Posted January 5, 2015 Share #36 Posted January 5, 2015 Did a soldier remove the rifle and take it home for his collection? Perhaps the "intent" of the "remover" does matter. The helmet has a swastica on it. Perhaps Captain Gatchell was following some sort of directive that all Nazi symbols be removed from grave sites. (That's not an unreasonable possibility.) I guess we could debate King Tut's tomb, but I, for one, am done with the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchcollector Posted January 5, 2015 Share #37 Posted January 5, 2015 When this M1 rifle was removed to be returned to an arms room, was the fallen soldier being disrespected??? Grave photo.jpg What you are attempting to put forth has nothing to do with the discussion,IMO. The Army reclaiming weapons to be reused again is legitimate,individual soldiers taking items from the dead after they are buried is not. Which brings me to a question.Does anyone know what is the "official" stand that our Military takes regarding the taking of "souvenirs" from the dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustang Posted January 5, 2015 Share #38 Posted January 5, 2015 This helmet and its provenance would be lost to history if Mr.Gatchell had not taken it.Chances are, the next GI who grabbed it would not have taken a photo of the grave.I would gladly accept the helmet in my collection as many others here would.Congrats on being the owner of a true one of a kind helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtA Posted January 5, 2015 Share #39 Posted January 5, 2015 What you are attempting to put forth has nothing to do with the discussion,IMO. The Army reclaiming weapons to be reused again is legitimate,individual soldiers taking items from the dead after they are buried is not. Good to see we have an expert on military law amongst us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASTAUFFER Posted January 5, 2015 Share #40 Posted January 5, 2015 I think this thread has run its course so I am going to be locking it, Kurt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts