Les

Chris, Was Pershing a terrible commander? Yes, few would argue otherwise. He was new to the war, had little experience in the command of large scale field operation of hundreds of thousands (let alone millions) of men. There are more than a few who believed then, and now, that Haig should have been sacked in the fall of 1916, let alone retained through the disasters of 1917 (and a few successes thanks to the Canadians and the occasional Anzac...), and the near collapse that occurred during the spring of 1918. Haig was retained largely because of his "political" and social connections, and the fear that no one else could replace him. Those who were capable of replacing Haig such as Allenby were shuffled out of sight, or perhaps some of the Canadian or ANZACs leaders were not politically acceptable to lead the BEF because they weren't (1) regular pre-war Army, and (2) not "British." So, despite Haig's leadership (or lack thereof) he was retained because some felt he was all they had. Pershing was under tremendous political pressure from Washington, DC to field an American, and American-led only force. The point of view of the American government was that the United States war effort, was associate with the British and French, but independent of, not going to be subordinated to the aims, methods, or goals of the British and French. The point of view of the American government (Wilson, and others both in the State and War Department) was that America joined the war on it's own, and could leave the war when it chose, without having to consult the British, French, Russians, etc. The US government flatly stated to the Allies, it could if it chose, resolve the end of the American war effort only on it's terms, and if that meant a solitary peace treaty with the Germans, or even a solitary war against German, that was an option the United States government was not giving up. Pershing was directed by Woodrow Wilson and the War Department, not to agree to splitting up American units and allowing them to be piecemealed into whatever British and French units needed manpower at any given time. His direct orders were to field American forces only when they were led by American officers, and under an overall American command. In one instance, Pershing agreed to place a component of the US 28ID under French command during the summer of 1918, in the area of Fismes and Fismette. The US commander on the spot withdrew his men from an isolated position where they had no flank protection, and were promptly order back across the Vesle river. Not long after moving back, they were attacked and came close to being annihilated. This raised a -huge- stink in the American papers, and helped foster a "never again" attitude regarding fielding American troops under British or French tactical officers and orders. Pershing also had to deal with the internal politics of the regular American army and assimilating nationalized National Guard units, wartime-only volunteers and conscripts into a field force that could operate as a single entity. The British faced similar problems in 1914, and were still dealing with the consequences more than a few years after the war had begun. The regular British army point of view that a man in uniform in a soldier, and all soldiers was a firmly fixed idea in the mind of more than a few senior British officers, Sir John French, and Haig among them. So, yes, the memoirs of National Guard officers and regular US Army officers may reflect a bias towards how each saw the other, and war, it's conduct, and field grade officers, senior commanders and Pershing's leadership (or lack thereof). Regarding your question about Belleau... Was it botched? Yes, American tactics were often badly planned and executed, however, the net effect was to put the Germans off balance, and had major psychological impacts. The Americans could say they were finally in the war, and the arrival of American troops signaled the start of a larger American effort that would soon put the Germans at a strategic disadvantage. The Marines get quite a bit of press about Belleau Wood. They got into it, but the operation there was concluded not by the Marines who had to be withdrawn because of heavy losses, and resulting disorganization of several types, but by the Army who were in reserve until the Marines ran out of steam. The Army concluded the operation and finally cleared the Bois de Belleau. (Probably more than what you wanted to read or know....)

Wikipedia sometimes provides decent information on subjects. In this case, the link below backs up what's said above, and provides additional information regarding German (and Austrian) laws on "Nachname" or family/last names. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:O15-TL4QbUYJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_name+genannt+german+adopted&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us I doubt the third reason for the five recognized legal reasons for changing a Nachname existed prior to 1945...

"British Museum" leather dressing is aimed at stabilizing old leathers so the items can be displayed and handled (often with caution), but not for actual use. Pecard's is a very similar product based on the same forumula the British Museum uses, although the materials used are not of the highest possible quality. Nothing undoes damaged leather or reverses the destruction of cellular material done to cured and tanned skins/leather, or what happens through wear and tear through use. Broken cellular structures turn into a fibrous material that does not have the same cohesion, flexibility, etc, as living tissues. The more leather is worn and used, the more fibrous it becomes and consequently less sound. Leather treatments often are literally skin deep or only to the surface. The important thing, is to get oils and lanolin into the interior of the leather. A good way to do this, is by warming the gel-like compounds to about the temperature of luke-warm tea so that it turns thin and runny but not so hot that it is uncomfortable to the touch, and also to have the leather being treated, at room temperature or slightly above. Apply several thin coats sparingly with several days or more between applications allowing each application time to penetrate into the leather. I would not apply an amount that leaves an excess or requires being "buffed off" as that buffing process means handling and rubbing the leather more than is necessary. On some badly aged or worn pieces it's always best to proceed cautiously. Bear in mind, the usual adage of never do what can't be undone...unless absolutely necessary. Adding chemical compounds to leather is not reversible. However, aged leather that is beginning to flake, turn powdery, and is turning into something that's on it's way to oblivion, means considering whether the piece is important (historical associations, a collector piece which is not a unique specimen but still important, if it has sentimental value, etc) and whether doing something or not is a choice between "saving" the piece or looking for a dumpster.

I thought someone would have posted this postcard before now. WWI German aviators received flight pay of 50RM. Someone probably thought he could make a minor financial killing selling this popular postcard showing a skull wearing a crash helmet with a 50RM note between the teeth...

Rick, I didn't want to be too specific because there are little things that could give the ownership of this (and one other piece) away. http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=7456 The thread dates back a few years and the question of whether the silver gilt piece with the crown in particular was solid or hollow construction. Dan never got back to providing an answer to that question, and someone who actually handled that specific piece and remembers it well, might be able to provide an accurate answer. I agree with you completely on the limitations of photography with regards to these, and many other pieces. Thanks, Les

One of these pieces has been posted on the forum before by a forum member who didn't own it but posted it for someone else. The damage to the enamel is very specific and identical to the posted photos. The piece was attributed to a very well-known recipient. At the time it was posted here, some might remember there were questions raised regarding provenance and so on.

During the 1970's and 1980's, I acquired a fair amount of "time on the ground" in Zambia and southern Africa and saw the political and military divide running along the Zambezi from both sides. The Zambezi River was roughly the dividing line between African and ANC related states to the north, and minority led and dominated governments southwards. Northern Rhodesia as it was known until 1964, during the early exploration and colonial period was often called the White Man's grave because of the numerous diseases (malaria, blackwater fever, bilharzia, sleeping sickness to name the most common diseases which were often lethal during the early years) in addition to the not so friendly critters, made being posted as a CO, DO, or police officer out of the UK, a less than popular assignment. The higher elevation of much of Southern Rhodesia resulted in a generally healthier climate than north of the Zambezi. Prior to Zambian independence in 1964, western goods from the outside world were imported via the rail road from South Africa and through Southern Rhodesia. Southern Rhodesia declared "UDI" or unilateral declaration of independence from British rule not the same year. South Africa supported the new Rhodesian Republic and shipped a wide variety of goods, raw materials, and the like northwards across the Limpopo; Britain's position on UDI was that it officially didn't happen, while imposing sanctions but doing little else to re-establish direct rule. For a few years, north-south trade continued, but eventually ended with Zambia closing borders to the south and looking towards it's northern neighbors for new commercial routes, Chinese trade, and also the establishment of ANC and terrorist bases in the county. The political situation turned into a undeclared war across the borders, and inside the "Rhodesian Republic" the internal security situation began heating up considerably. During this period, having a South African visa, entry stamp or related South African stamps (security stamps, police checks, etc) in your passport could result in being denied entry into many "African" states. The UK's official position that "Southern Rhodesia" continued to exist and there was no "Rhodesian Republic" remained the Foreign Office's POV until 1979/1980 when the Ian Smith led government more or less ran out of steam, and with South African support falling off. South Africa at the time was also busy with events in South-west Africa/Namibia and the "incursion" into Angola. Britain's "failure" to actually do something overt regarding Rhodesia is linked to economic considerations of the time, particularly the state of the British economy at the time, and the situation in Northern Ireland. At the time, the feeling was that Britain had some major irons in other fires that required tending, and there was a feeling that doing something wrong could make the situation much worse, while doing nothing might keep the status quo pending a better time to do something further down the proverbial road. In Zambia, getting military souvenirs wasn't easy and items couldn't be bought in public stores. Americans were discouraged from visiting Rhodesia at the time, although it was possible to go there. Considering the political and military situation there, one had to ask whether the reasons were good enough to run the risk of running into some of the potential problems foreigners can run in war zone situations. Armed whites were usually associated as being part of the Smith led government or one of it's supporting organizations. I didn't get any "brass" although I wasn't really looking for any at that time. I saw quite a bit of Rhodesian "brass" in South African military and coin collectors shops during that time period (I specifically recall one shop in Jo/burg during 1979). I did find a few WWI and WWII vets that served in East Africa, and found several of them more interesting than the usual material centred collector things. Mervyn, is there any particular direction(s) you want this thread to take from here?

WOW !

Red, Thank you for writing the article and bringing it to our attention. There is a lot of detailed information in there. It's interesting to see the complete list of people, all of them academics/scholars and not military or political figures, awarded the "Gorgon" badge, and also a list of those who were awarded the "Becher."

I'm not going to touch that one. Unnh-uh, no way.

Chris, the Bavarian Army museum has files on officers and men, and medical reports on wounds specifying the details of the wound, type (arty, gunshot, etc), where, and related details. If he was hit in the upper chest, that would go nicely with the suggestion the tag was hit by shrapnel.

ALL of the steel helmets are the Berndorfer pattern, not the usual German and Austrian pattern. I like the dog sneaking into the rear rank for the photo op.... :-)

Mervyn, Warm and wet; "cavitation" is how it's done. Here's a Wikipedia article on the subject if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_cleaning The article describes the process also being used for weapons cleaning, etc. There are small ones commonly available for cleaning jewelry, dentures, small parts, etc. There are larger ones available about the size of a breadbox that are used for cleaning handguns without having to break them down first.

They work very well if the item is all metal with no cloth, leather or other parts that would be damaged by being soaked with the chemicals used. Ammonia is one of the primary compounds used. The process will remove every ounce of patina on the item, in addition to removing dirt, etc.

Looks post-war. Russia was officially an enemy during the war, and those Imperial Russian medals in the photos would rule out war-time production of the cataloge. In addition there are other clues indicating a post-war. Interestingly, there are Meybauer marked pieces which are not in the -available- photos, for example, the EK's, various Freikorp badges, etc. Whether the catalog had more pages or not is anyone's guess.

Colin, that's likely the situation. Gottfried the well known naval flying boat ace, had an older brother Karl who also flew, and was credited with several kills. There was another relative Frederick Banfield (a cousin I think), and also flew for the Austrians. Gottfried stayed in Trieste after it was annexed by Italy, and became an Italian citizen. His younger brother Karl left the newly annexed area for England in 1920, and spent several years in there, until returning to Trieste circa 1925 or so.

Try this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftschiffer The Feldluftschiffer is the name originally used for the tethered gas bags, and different from the Luftschiffer units which are the powered airship units.

It really is. There are photos of Mackensen during the TR-era, in uniform, wearing his medals from 1870 and 1914-1918. Mackensen and a single WWII era recipient would fit the bill for having all three issues in one photo. In 1940, when Wilhelm II died, Mackensen was at the funeral. Currently serving officers were discouraged by the regieme d'jour from going to the funeral, however, some chose to go. I don't have any photos of copies of photos of the funeral or services, however, there are some around. There is some serious metal in those photos.

the last page... The point of this thread is to illustrate how a high-end fake was discovered, and Petersen's description as he says is his point of view, and people are free to ask any one he names, for their version of events.

..

..

..

..

The faxed material Petersen asked be circulated and posted on-line.

end of covering letter