Brian Wolfe

Congratulations, an excellent specimen, well done. Regards Brian

OMG, you've got yourself a mistress! Oh, dude, you never bring them home! Regards Brian

Just a friendly caution, this time, pull back on the tempers or stop posting. There is no reason we can't discuss this issue, or any other, in a civil manner. Regards Brian

Fantastic! Thank you for going to all the trouble, it is greatly appreciated. Regards from 6 hours South of Ottawa, but still in Upper Canada. Brian

Hello, Very nice find indeed, congratulations. I thought Mervyn said "Hollywood" and was just about to give him the gears. Regards Brian

Hi Tony, PM sent, thank you very much. Regards Brian

Hi Tony, Thanks for this information, now is the type "D" also the Mk.I? I suspect that since the date of the document is late 1915 this could be the model just before the Mk.I, which came out in 1916. Any thoughts? Regards Brian

Hi Jerry, I agree with you 100%. I think that almost every collector in the world knows the British helmet by the term brodie and really that should be the main point. I do like the correct terminology to at least be known and with that in mind if you or any other member runs onto any documentation that would shed light on this point please let the members know, as will I. Regards Brian

I am convinced that I need to research this more so I'll do that and see what I find. God knows, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. Brian

I would imagine he still held the patent even though the government made changes and renamed the helmet the Mk.I and so on. The original helmet submitted to the War Department would have been "sealed" upon acceptance and necessary changes made as needed. Even today, with other products, I doubt the rim application on the brodie helmet making it the Mk.I would have constituded enough of a change to void the patent or create new one. Perhaps it is the collectors who have decided to separate the pre Mk.I from the earlier brodie helmet by deeming the pre Mk.I "Brodie". Not sure about that point. Ha ha, yes "Doughboy" is correct, I was just being a "pill" putting doe (a deer, a female deer- now I can't get that song out of my mind) and buoy (a naval marker) together. Ok, not funny. Regards Brian

It was common enough to use up current stocks if they fit a newer design, at least until the new, in this case liners, were produced in quantities large enough to meet the demand. If one of the later WWII "turtle shell" helmets were fitted with the WWI liner because there were not enough liners for the new heimet then from your reasoning they too would be brodies...D-Day Brodies. Of course this would indeed be a rare collectable. I don't think the A & B ever when into general use and the thrid "pattern", called the brodie, afer its inventor, first came out in 1915 and had a sharp rim (no rolled piece around the rim). Due to complaints about safety the helmet was redesigned and issued as the Mk.I in 1916. I don't believe the term "brodie" was ever an official name so it was not the MK.I Brodie (1916). The first brodies were not made in qualtities to be issued right away and became Trench Stores and when a soldier left the trenches he left the helmet behind for his replacement to use. In 1916 the Mk.I was produced in qualtities large enough to be issued to all troops. Facts are facts my friends and do not change unlike memories, especially with the passing of time, so I stand to be corrected. Regards Brian

All joking aside, and I assume we are joking in regard to “beardy types, anoraks and train spotters”, facts are facts my friends and only those helmets made early on, that is to say the rimless variety are true brodies. All helmets after that went by MK.I, Mk.II etc. I suppose in the big picture all British helmets might as well be called brodies after all is there a difference between a gun and a rifle, a rifle and a musket, or a Tommy and a Doughboy (especially if spelled “Doebuoy”)? Calling a Memorial Plaque a Death Penny can also get me ranting. I’m not obsessive, it’s just that everything must be in neat rows, and correctly labeled. That’s why I hate cats, you just can’t get them to stay in neat rows and they keep removing those sticky labels from their foreheads!!! Seriously, a great post with a lot of very interesting information. Thanks everyone...I have to go now I think I hear a train coming. Regards Brian

Nice helmets and WWI for sure, however, I don't think they are true Brodies as they lacked the rim ring which appeared shortly after the true Brodie, yours has the later rim ring. The term Brodie "stuck" but the later issues were actually made as "Marks". I do stand to be corrected on this point. Thanks for posting them. Regards Brian

Sorry, dragons are solitary therefore only one per own and not for sale. I could let you have a couple of Amazon guards, it would quickly help you know if the term "girlfriend" was correct for that best friend you mentioned. Regards Brian

Perhaps the next logical topic for a blog would indeed be one about Winston Churchill, though I would have to adjust my high opinion of the man a great deal if I want to remain objective. Certainly to say that Churchill won the Second World War would be as inaccurate as to say that Chamberlain was responsible for the starting of the War. In doing some additional research I find that there is a recent movement by those referred to as “Revisionist” to clear Mr. Chamberlain of any blame for the situation in 1939. That makes me almost wish that I had not written this blog in the first place as it seems to me these fellows are right up there with the Conspiracy Theorists or those UFO nuts. During the 1930s both Churchill and Chamberlain were of the same opinion regarding the Soviet Union, which Churchill always referred to as Russia or the Russians. Churchill realized that Britain needed the Soviet Union as an ally if they were to go to war against Germany. Chamberlain held onto his negative opinions until war was declared and most likely until the end of his life. This negativity certainly also had a negative result in regard to any move on the part of the Soviet Union for an earlier alliance with Britain. Churchill was probably not the only voice of what we now realize was the voice of reason in protesting against the appeasement policy of the government in power at the time, however, he has been credited with this. He was not taken seriously possibly because of his history concerning the Dardanelles disaster of the First World War. At the same time it would appear that Chamberlain and his government were blind toward the consideration of any other options even though Mr. Churchill was anything but reserved in stating his opinions. Certainly in hindsight the armchair generals, being the geniuses that they are, can now say that had the British supported Czechoslovakia in 1938 that the war may have ended right there before it broke out into a world war. Czechoslovakia had a strong military, tanks, fortifications along her border and natural defences in the form of her mountains. These were absent in Poland therefore handing over Czechoslovakia was a move that guaranteed the loss of Poland to Germany. “Guaranteed” because German had suffered no military setbacks in the taking of Czechoslovakia and therefore was both at full military strength and undefeated, bolstering their belief in their own invincibility. Field Marshal Keitel noted in his memoirs that the Czech defenses surprised the Wehrmacht in regard to their strength. However, when it comes to history the “if only” scenario counts for little. Brian

Mervyn, Thank you for that comment Mervyn. Rick, I agree; from all that I have read there seems to be no evidence that Chamberlain was using a stalling measure with the exception of those who would defend him no matter what the evidence would suggest.Britain was ill equipped to meet the German Army one on one in the late 1930s though the British Royal Navy was a force to be reckoned with and I think history proves that the British Royal Air Force of 1940 was more than capable, given they had the early warning system up and running along with an over abundance of intestinal fortitude. Regards Brian

Fine! Now your on the "other" list, smart guy. Regards Brian

Ok, you got me, I don't really have a Christmas Card list...but I do have a list...good news you are not on it. Another point for Mr. Chamberlain. His parents named him Neville for God's sake. Poor little fellow was probably beaten up at school and had his lunch money stolen on a regular basis. He was doomed to give things away without a fight. Regards Brian

I'll see what I can do, if the catacomb doors are not rusted shut. Regards Brian

I was thinking the same thing regarding Churchill. One of the things I don't think many of the members are aware of is that you were in England during the war and would have not only experienced the fears and worries of the times but heard what was being said about the different leaders. This gives you an opinion based on more than history written by authors that who not likely born until after the war and therefore with no real-time experiences. So, keep "stiring". Regards Brian

Mervyn, As you can imagine (since we both have Australian friends) why I stayed away from the mention of Gallipoli. As to changing your opinion, I do hope that my article would not have that effect. It was too shallow to change minds, if indeed anything written by me could change minds to any great degree. Thank goodness Hitler refused to listen to his generals, for the most part, as it turns out he may have been one of our very best allies. It has been suggested that was the reason the allies never seriously attemped to assinate Hitler, that and his own people were busy enough trying to take care of that for us. Thanks for your comment. Regards Brian

Yes but I keep my collection of raw gems stones (part of the geological collection) here locked away deep in the catacombs under the Home Office, guarded by my dragon and corps of Amazons. By the way, the whole collection will be coming up for sale in 2015. I'm keeping the dragon and Amazons though. Regards Brian

So true. I would like to debate this if I were more knowledgable on the subject. "Parliamentary speak", love it. One of the oft used words along those lines, "notwithstanding". We have whole clauses dedicated to this word in Canadian Parliamentary Laws and Acts. I believe you'll find the Notwithstanding Clause within our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, now where did I put my copy. Regards Brian

Hi Rick, I suppose we need to ask, "what is a good leader". Is it someone whose actions reflect the will of the people or one who acts as he (or she) believes to be correct. I think we have examples of both in Chamberlain and Hitler. Chamberlain, in enacting the will of the general population to avoid a war that would cost the lives of yet another generation of British men and women and Hitler in emposing his will over the population and leading them into another conflict. As far as the two men, and even the two different nations of the time, we are probably looking at compairing apples and oranges. Were there people who saw the appeasement of the Nazi regiem as the wrong direction to follow? Sure and the same could be said in regard to the German poeple. However the vast majority of the future allied countries did indeed care little about the nations given over to Hitler. It was a "small price" to pay to avoid war. Of course we now know that this very policy did nothing to convince the German people that the Nazis were wrong, aftetr all it is easy to get swept up in a fervor national support when you are seeing victory after victory and the other side sees only that, "at least we avoided war...for today". Short sighted, certainly; perservation of life for "yet one more day attitude" most assuredly. Did the American President not refuse to intervien in China when he arguably could have? Sure he did, yet when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour he went to war and was an effictive war leader. I can't help but to wonder if Chamberlain would not have been a good war leader had he lived, after all as has been stated it was Chamberlain's government (with him as leader)who declaired war on German and not Chirchill. We'll never know for certain but perhaps food for thought all the same. Regards Brian

Hello Megan, I do agree that it is often difficult, if not impossible, to avoid viewing history with a mind set of the era in which we are speaking. On the other hand, my father blamed Chirchill for the disasterous raid on Deippe untill the day he passed away, even though he loved the British people and often said he would have liked to have retired in the South of England. It was not until resent research into the raid found that it was in fact a diversional raid in order to "pinch" an Enigma machine, which was not located at that site at the time. I only wish that I could have made him aware of that before he passed away. My point is that there are even examples of the mind set of the day that clouds history and makes research difficult to say the least. I of course agree with you that we need to find out what the mind set of the day was if we want to get an accurate picture of the time period we are researching. It would seem that even then history is clouded with misconception and purposeful misdirection. Thank you for your reply, these are the exchanges of points of view I was looking to generate. Regards Brian