Jump to content
Gentleman's Military Interest Club
Guest Brian von Etzel

Evidence of an Unknown RK

Recommended Posts

Guest Brian von Etzel

Well said Dietrich. I find it beyond ironic that the very man, Detlev Niemann, vilified on the site "advertised" by PK in this thread gave his opinion as to the Rounder and now Tom Hanson is an RK expert because his "research" agrees with Detlev's opinion. Were it pure research not laced with personal attacks and PMs and emails trying to goad and provoke me and others into a war with these people it would be interesting. As it is, it is the same old muckraking. Nothing new that hasn't been said over and over...

Repeatedly I said that the Rounder RK in my possession was given to me in 1968. That has been conveniently twisted and turned to call me a liar over and over. If it stays on PK's little site, good for him, when it spills over here, I am annoyed. My uncle died at Stalingrad from wounds received. He earned the RK. Like it or not that my uncle was an RK winner, it is a fact. No photo exists of him wearing his RK. He was given the RK while suffering from his wounds. Dietrich has read the letters from his son and knows this to be true. Publishing his name is not proper and will do nothing to prove where the Rounder came from. No proof of the RK passing hands, never said there was, the nastiness just goes on and on...

Edited by Brian von Etzel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Approved wartime RK manufacturers: C E Juncker; Godet*; Zimmermann; Klein & Quenzer; Steinhauer & L?ck; Otto Schickle; Deschler & Sohn"

That's all, folks. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change anything."

Wilhelm Deumer offered the RK in their wartime awards catalog. I'm not saying that they manufactured them, but do we know that they didn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

Yes George, and important to point out WHEN the list was narrowed to these manufacturers.

It was a wide open range of medal makers before this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Approved wartime RK manufacturers: C E Juncker; Godet*; Zimmermann; Klein & Quenzer; Steinhauer & L?ck; Otto Schickle; Deschler & Sohn"

That's all, folks. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change anything."

Wilhelm Deumer offered the RK in their wartime awards catalog. I'm not saying that they manufactured them, but do we know that they didn't?

Yes and in my local Regimental museum is an "unknown" RK and Oakleaves mounted on a Deumer card.

[attachmentid=28255]

[attachmentid=28256]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dietrich,

I did indeed write that approved wartime RK manufacturers included C E Juncker Godet, Zimmermann, Klein & Quenzer, Steinhauer & L?ck, Otto Schickle and Deschler & Sohn. I then wrote: "That's all, folks. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change anything."

On the basis of this sentence, you suggest that I am against further investigation. That just shows how little you know about me. I am not against research at all! I am however against the presentation of hypotheses as fact, particularly when supported by falsified evidence.

In saying that no amount of wishing thinking can change the facts as they stand, I meant no more than that. If someone comes up with verifiable evidence that Ritterkreuze zum EK 1939 were ordered from firms hitherto unknown or unaccepted as officially approved suppliers of the RK, that will be great!

I am aware of the examples you cite although I am wary of some of the sources, as you might know! It would be foolish to imagine that no RK were made by unauthorised firms before the LDO crackdown around March 1941.

However, if we are too ready to accept variant RK as examples of pre-March 1941 manufacture by unknown makers, this is tantamount to handing carte blanche to fakers and bent dealers to dream up scams like this "rounder" thing.

Can W?chter & Lange produce hard proof that they made RK between 1939 and 1945? I have heard and read this story but nobody has yet scanned and posted, for instance, a letter from W&L containing such statements.

As for the "unknown" cross in the Niemann catalogue, it could well be a cross purchased by the RKT or even a cross confiscated by the LDO in 1941 and subsequently awarded to the man from stock. Who knows? As such, it is admissable as a "probable". It is probably a wartime piece.

There again, when George Petersen bought the Paul Conrath RK documents from Niemann some years ago, they came with enough "dead solid provenance", as you put it, to convince Petersen that they were genuine. As we now know, Niemann was brokering them for another dealer and they were fakes.

Returning to this "unknown" RK in Niemann's catalogue, it is reassuring that no identical crosses appear to have been offered for sale anywhere...yet. Perhaps I am overly cynical, old chap, but I am quite experienced when it comes to high end fakers and their methods, as some people here know!

In conclusion, there is nothing wrong with carrying out research but publishing it as fact or likely fact, backed by by fabricated evidence, is rather irresponsible, isn't it? Fortunately, it was exposed - despite strenuous efforts to gag the whistleblower! - before lots of less-experienced collectors bought "Rounders"!

I trust I have made my position, as publisher of Dr Hansen's findings, crystal clear? In the interests of even-handedness, of course, I intend to publish your article as well, Dietrich, just as it appears on Brian's website. That way, readers can examine the evidence and arguments and draw their own conclusions.

I think you will agree that I really could not be fairer than that.

Paddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have answered the points made by George Stimson and Dave B. Yes, of course, I know about the Deumer connection but I have never seen a cross that could be identified definitively as having been made by Deumer. As you say, George, we cannot be sure that Deumer did not make Ritterkreuze but it is just as possible that they bought them in, as Godet bought in crosses from C F Zimmermann.

We know that the firms I listed were approved producers and suppliers of the RK. We think there may have been some other makers, certainly before the 1941 tightening-up, but that is all that we can say, based upon factual evidence. The line drawing catalogue listing George showed us evokes the overall form of the so-called "half-ring" or "three-quarters ring" RK, which those of you with Gordon Williamson's recent book to hand can see on Page 274. Some refer to this as the "Schinkelform Knight's Cross".

Gordon refers to an example in a Godet carton, which would not rule out manufacture by Deumer, especially as we know that Godet sourced crosses, like the ones in the special cased EK/RK ensembles of 1939, from Zimmermann. There again, maybe Godet did make these crosses and perhaps they decided to buy in Zimmermann crosses because it was pointed out that their cross was not sufficiently close in appearance to the specifications.

Who knows? This is all informed hypothesis but no more than that. One crosses the line when one writes hypothesis up as fact, supported by fabricated stories. That Hansen appears to have been gagged - and it is not as if we have not seen this kind of thing before where the sites in question are concerned! - makes it harder to refute the conspiracy theorists who jump on stories like this. You can shoot at the messengers as much as you like but it is too late: the message has been delivered.

PK

Edited by PKeating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian von Etzel

Dietrich,

In conclusion, there is nothing wrong with carrying out research but publishing it as fact or likely fact, backed by by fabricated evidence, is rather irresponsible, isn't it? Fortunately, it was exposed - despite strenuous efforts to gag the whistleblower! - before lots of less-experienced collectors bought "Rounders"!

Paddy

Care to elaborate?

Didn't the "Author" try to sell a Rounder on eBay as original? Wasn't THAT what got him ejected. Let's keep the facts straight as long as you desire to continually bring out your "evidence".

Edited by Brian von Etzel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Brian, I have read the eBay ad in which the Hansen "Rounder" was offered for $3,000.00 on a Buy-It-Now basis. It is certainly what one would call close to the knuckle but then again, Tom Hansen isn't exactly hard up for money and two factors strike me as quite revealing of a subtle sense of humour: first of all, only a complete fool would think he was getting a genuine Ritterkreuz as discussed in one of the foremost reference works for three grand and, secondly, maybe he was poking fun at Gordon Williamson's inclusion of this type of cross in his reference book. Dr Hansen did not declare the cross to be original. Anyway, people in glass houses oughtn't to throw stones! The way in which Dr Hansen decided to dispose of the "rounder" once he had carried out his research is not really relevant to his findings, is it?

PK

Edited by PKeating

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In conclusion, there is nothing wrong with carrying out research but publishing it as fact or likely fact, backed by by fabricated evidence, is rather irresponsible, isn't it? Fortunately, it was exposed - despite strenuous efforts to gag the whistleblower! - before lots of less-experienced collectors bought "Rounders"!

I trust I have made my position, as publisher of Dr Hansen's findings, crystal clear? In the interests of even-handedness, of course, I intend to publish your article as well, Dietrich, just as it appears on Brian's website. That way, readers can examine the evidence and arguments and draw their own conclusions.

I think you will agree that I really could not be fairer than that. Paddy

Prosper,

ok, I misinterpreted your "will not change anything". I'm sorry, old chap. I'm glad that you stand fully behind research and publication of new findings and ideas! Glad that I know you better now in that respect.

I do not understand, however, your remark about fabricated evidence, exposure of such and gagging of whistleblowers. Unless you really believe that all the threads about this subject at another side have been altered for whatever reason, including to show (now??) Hansen's position, I find this notion rather far fetched and the start of another urban ledgend. But let's leave it like that.

And 'No", I will not give you permission to publish the article in question. I see the intend behind it and I cannot agree for the benefit of the collectors to have something published that is more than 3 years old and does no longer reflect the 'state of the art' as it is today. You know, research goes on and new twists and turns make 3 year old articles obsolete. This would be the same like posting old threads and old opinions of what one said in younger days about people and which no longer applies today. Something I don't like either.

But you were already helping by letting the link to WAF stand were the results as I see it are clearly spelled out, including the statement of Dr. Hansen. Thank you for that - and let me say again - this and any other thread about this subject was not or will not be altered, censored, edited or whatever.

Dietrich

Edited by Dietrich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×