After reading the post about the ss bunker helmets I went to the russian link that was suggested. There were some pics that made me start thinking about ground dug helmets. I would think a lot of these are taken only by disturbing the remains of a dead soldier. After looking at this excavation site, I dont think I would buy a ground dug helmet, unless I knew it was just laying on the ground and was not attached to a skull. I just dont want it on my conscience. I know this is a hobby where the chances of death being part of the helmet you posess is a very very strong possibility. Some of the helmets I have now have bullet holes. However, to do disturb the dead 60 + years later is very distasteful to me. Let them rest in peace. Im not judging anyone by any means, the pics I looked at,hit a cord is all. No offense. If you do this, it is your business not mine
I know this is a hobby where the chances of death being part of the helmet you posess is a very very strong possibility. Some of the helmets I have now have bullet holes. However, to do disturb the dead 60 + years later is very distasteful to me. Let them rest in peace.
Hello. I am not trying to start an argument here but, what exactly is the difference between taking a helmet from the remains of a dead soldier, and taking a helmet (with bullet holes) from a dead soldier who was killed in battle,...except for the 60+ year difference? They are both ghoulish to me.
I personally wouldn't want a ground dug helmet. There are plenty of nice helmets if you save up the money.
Hello. I am not trying to start an argument here but, what exactly is the difference between taking a helmet from the remains of a dead soldier, and taking a helmet (with bullet holes) from a dead soldier who was killed in battle,...except for the 60+ year difference? They are both ghoulish to me.
I personally wouldn't want a ground dug helmet. There are plenty of nice helmets if you save up the money.
i thought about this too after I wrote it, and there probably is no difference except the 60 years. Good point.
I personally would not want anything that I knew was removed from a body... at all.
BTW, the helmet shown in the photo is a M18(WW1?).
If you cycle through all of the photos, it seems that the site is a WW1 era burial site. It looks as if they are cataloging the bodies as it seems that they are doing a good job at keeping everything together. Perhaps this is a govt sanctioned excavation?
__________________ I am looking for items or information related to Major Max Reck, the 236th IR, or Kampfgruppe Reck(Warsaw Uprising, 1944)
If you earned $15 a month and new that locally there are loads of DD SS helmets lying under the ground and that collectors would pay $$$$$$$$$$$ for them ,what would you do ? That is the question and the answer is as Charles Bronson once said "We DIg" .Rob
My opinion is just that, an opinion. I say there are plenty of good helmets around, so let the ground dug stay there. After all it was most likely the soldiers last burial site, so let these honorable soldiers rest where they fell, and in peace.
Regards,
Gary
Hello. I am not trying to start an argument here but, what exactly is the difference between taking a helmet from the remains of a dead soldier, and taking a helmet (with bullet holes) from a dead soldier who was killed in battle,...except for the 60+ year difference? They are both ghoulish to me.
I personally wouldn't want a ground dug helmet. There are plenty of nice helmets if you save up the money.
I guess Soldiers at the time earn the right? 60 years later and some guy with a metal detector? It's just bad form.
It is YOU the collector who wants these grounddug relics,so,THEY will get them for YOU...,rather simple..
It's like loving to eat a steak,but don't like to kill the animal...the butcher is da man.
I dont buy ground dug helmets because there would be a good chance they have come from black diggers who take buckles and helmets etc and then discard the remains!!!!
The guys in these pictures seem to be doing a very professional job, and the bodies they found were probably brought to a military cemetery after that. As far as I can see they are not grave robbers at all, but people finding MIA bodies and dealing with them properly.
I think by finding an MIA you earn the right to keep his rusty helmet just as much as the soldier in 1944 who killed that MIA could. You are giving the guy a real grave, bringing the info of where his body was found to his familly, etc. All this for no money, and quite a lot of work. No soldiers buried in normal circumstances are buried with their helmet still on anyways.
If there were more guys like the ones in these pictures, and less black diggers, grave robbing wouldnt be the problem it is. Anyways, if the german governement was more willing to collaborate with black diggers, they could get them to do a lot of good work. But then again, who would pay for making the one million graves necessary for all those MIA? Its easier to find a few bodies the "white" way to say that you are trying, and then say that it is those horrible russians diggers who are destroying all the rest of the graves. At the same time, it avoids the german government a whole lot of work and expenses.
By the way, all these pictures are apparently taken on a battlefield from the Russian Finnish war, that explains the WW1 stile german helmets, the weird dog tags and gas masks, and the early russian helmet.
I have many helmets that I found on bodies myself, or saw others find on bodies, and it doesnt bother me at at all. I know the bodies were dealt with properly, and keeping the helmet is part of keeping the dead mans memory alive. Look at this thread to see what happens to the helmets if you dont keep them yourself: they end up being thrown away as trash. Not particularly respectfull of history or of the dead guy in my opinion : http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ight=volksbund
Ok whatever keep tell yourself that and you might wake up one day and think its true!!!! All black diggers are interested in is the money people pay for what they find
i thought about this too after I wrote it, and there probably is no difference except the 60 years. Good point.
Except taking one from a fallen soldier at the time it happened is more legitimate because at least it is in the current time of battle etc and the living soldier has more right to an enemy helmet than some profiteer 60yrs on.
These guys can dig up all the rusty old DD SS they like, they still look like a bit of junk and I would never buy one.
I personally collect a lot of ground dug material, almost everything i have was found by myself. In my aera(10 mile cirkel) where more 40000 germans stationated durig the war, as well the biggests ammo storage of western europe in the years 44 and 45. There was no fighting here, but there are a lot of relics to find here and for me that has more falue in it than buying mint helmets.
When I was a child, I wanted to become an archeologist.
Years later, when I was a teenager, I took part in several digs, mainly in the south of France looking for remains of the old Romain Empire (house, etc). Occasionaly, we would come across a few bones from animals but sometimes also from humain beings.
As I remember, all that was then carefully recorded, anotated numbered and photographed for historical purposes.
I do not believe that there is no much difference between digging ancien Romain sites and old battlefields - at the end, what is collected belongs to the past, history, but before that, it used to be somebody's property or, in some cases, someone's body.
I am of the opinion that everything is a matter of ethics: digging with the intention of robbing dead bodies and make a buisness out of it is probably wrong. Surely, that is not what historians and archeologists are interests in (most of whom are in fact quite poor!). Stealing from graves is a practice which has been enjoyed by people for now centuries and it would be illusory to believe that that will not carry on for centuries to come.
On the other hand, digging with a view to permitting a better understanding of our past must be right. This is, I believe, what historians and archeologists do and are trained for. In most instances, their work is not intended to steal to make money, but to improve our understanding of our history. From their findings, reaserches follow and thorough records made.
Now back to our issue: I think that, as highlighted above, everything is a matter of ethics: digging battelfields in the prospect of making some findings to make extra cash is not right. The effects of this is often to impair our understanding of our past - this was clearly evidenced by well known Egyptologists. However, digging battelfields to contribute to the understanding of military history must be more acceptable. There is still a lot which can be learnt about this (event recent) past (I refer here to WW1 and WW2). Many of the witnesses of these4 past event have now died and digging will become an important source of information. Provided that idigging is carried out with profesionalism and ethics, I will not object.
From that follows that if I were to find an old helmet from some digs, I would certainly not keep it or even less sell it. Rather, I would give it on trust to the local council or authorities for their records so that it can be added to human kind's heritage.
By the way guys: I think that we all are archeolists in our own way! Don't you think?
Maybe in 1000 years they'll dig up my bones sitting here in front of my ancient computer and try to figure out how in the hell I had so much time to waste
Your feeling about ground dug helmets?
Linear Mode
