Jan C. Still Lugerforums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Need some help, men.
When did the NSDAP begin to apply their nitro proof?

The war began with the British declaration of Sept. 3, 1939, and, as I recall, the E/N proof began sometime in 1940 Seems that somewhere (have been looking) some research indicates that the E/N was not actually begun to be applied on pistols until quite a few months into 1940.

D a r n ! Am unable to find this info in my notes. Must be getting old(er).

Pancho
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,288 Posts
Pancho,

the NSDAP has nothing to do with change from crown/N to eagle/N. The new gun proof law came into force on January 15, 1940.

Jan,

yes, I know: older sources are telling, it was April 01, 1940. But that is not true. I guess, Wirnsberger with his booklet was the first who made this mistake. In his book are some other errors, for example, the crown/V marking and the period it was used. Wirnsberger is wrong on this point also.

I, personally, prefer original sources and no secondary sources. Some years ago I examined the Reichsgesetzblatt for the law. The date January 15 is a fact.

Martin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Martin,

No offense, since as a German I would imagine you are particularly sensitive on this topic, but, of course, the Nazi party had something to do with the new nitro proof. The proof is an eagle pearched on a wreathed swastika. The early proof was a stick eagle, later, a bodied eagle, but always perched on a wreathed swastika. Other than as a Cherokee charm, I know of no other association for the swastika, other than the NSDAP, especially in Germany, in 1940. Get over it. We are pistol collectors. I feel certain that no one on this forum thinks that you or I are Nazis. It's just pistol collecting, but, we have an overriding obligation to the truth, and political correctness typically conflicts with truthfulness. Again, no offense. We are a sophisticated group on this forum, and from my experience, we are kind, generous and helpful.

I am more concerned with the approximate date that the marking began to be applied, not with the date of passage of the specific law. I know that most collectors believe that its application date (ie. April) was not immediately simultaneous with the date of passage of the specific law.

Thanks,
Pancho
 
G

·
Pancho, it has nothing to do with sensitivity. Martin is correct. The NSDAP had nothing to do with the application of the change in design of the proof mark. The German state seal was the eagle cluthing a swastika. And I mean the German government, not the Nazi Party. The Nazi party also used the eagle swastika. But the new nitro proof mark merely used the national symbol with the N for nitro. The German national government issued its passport (Riesepass)which had an eagle and swaz on it. The party did not issue the passport.

The new nitro law went into effect January 15, 1940. The April 1,1940 date was an error of interpretation which continued in perpetration by a slew of authors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,325 Posts
Geezer:
Pardon my ignorance, but does the German seal of an Eagle over swastika predate the take over of the goverment by the Nazi party in 1933, or did it exist in that form prior to 1933, and if so, when?
Val
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,288 Posts
Pancho, Geezer, Val,

a little OT , but interesting , I guess. I have a small book about heraldry where the III. Reich eagle is shown. The interesting point: the different eagle's head directions: Staat (State) to the left, Partei (party) to the right.



Download Attachment: Adler.jpg
204.03KB

So there was made a difference between State authorities and the NSDAP. Geezer is right: it has nothing to do with sensivity.

quote: am more concerned with the approximate date that the marking began to be applied, not with the date of passage of the specific law. I know that most collectors believe that its application date (ie. April) was not immediately simultaneous with the date of passage of the specific law.
Right! The law passed on July 08, 1939, and came into force on January 15, 1940.

I have heard the April 01 story also. Has anybody a source, where this date is mentioned?

Would like to know.

Martin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Sauerfan: "...the NSDAP has nothing to do with change from crown/N to eagle/N."
Geezer: "The NSDAP had nothing to do with the application of the change in design of the proof mark."

No offense intended, but this calls for plain, albeit civil, speaking. Val's brevity is precisely on point regarding the swastika. My point is more wordy. Your stand on the wreathed swastika nitro proof is preposterous. This has an effect on your credibility, generally. If you are willing to believe what you feel is comfortable, rather than what is plainly truthful, then I am unable to take any of your statements at face value, but must interpret them according to your particular idiosyncrasies, not according to their truthfulness. This "truthfulness" conflict derives from the English Common Law and is part of the American fundament, and its results are inevitable--one loses credibility, and is judged by that loss. I am not accustomed to this, particularly on this forum. I advise that you take a pause to consider your positions, and recall that it is very likely that others are reading this topic and forming their opinions as to our credibility. Again, your position is preposterous. I've met many intelligent and apt folks on this forum, and have read many detailed postings, but, I have never met anyone that would refute the direct historical tie between the Nazi party and the swastika.

Your agenda is occluding your reason. For instance, can you, without conflicting with your current position, answer me this riddle.

Considering, (1) Goebbel’s May 19, 1933 decree, the “Law for Protection of National Symbols,” insured the transcendence of the swastika by preventing its unauthorized commercial use, and (2) the Allies’ de-Nazification legislation passed in the closing months of World War II which outlawed the swastika as being indivisible from the Nazi party, why does the swastika remain a forbidden symbol in today's Germany ?

I await your response.

Pancho

PS. It is not a dishonorable act to take back one's statements. It is actually an honorable act.
PPS. Note: Enumerated items 1 & 2, above, are taken from "The Swastika: Constructing The Symbol"
by Malcolm Quinn, and from the book review done by Steven Heller.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,288 Posts
Pancho,

thanks for your detailed answer! It is a great forum here – for sure! Every day I am learning new English words. For example, I had to use a dictionary for the words "preposterous", and "idiosyncrasy". Two new words ! Thanks!

I guess, there will be a simple misunderstanding. Sure, we all know, who used the swastika and who made it a governmental symbol. Obviously, I have (had?) a wrong understanding of your question:

quote:When did the NSDAP begin to apply their nitro proof?
1/ For me, the eagle/N Nitro proof is an eagle with straight wings holding the letter "N". No swastika. Said eagle/N replaced the crown/N. In early 1940.
2/ why the design was changed (crown replaced by an eagle) is also no question. Crowns got out of style after 1918 – and after 1933 eagles in the new design were up-to-date. For known reasons.

For TECHNICAL reasons, the old proof law of 1891 (slightly amended in 1912) was outdated – too complicate, not practical. The purpose of the new law was not to introduce eagle markings. Purpose was to create and establish a new and better law (what is, basically, still valid today). As a side effect, new proof markings were introduced. Eagles now.....

That's all. Yes, the eagle design goes back to Hitler's design rules. So what?

Martin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,288 Posts
Pancho,

" a photo can say more than thousand words" . Please find hereinafter scans of the Reichsgesetzblatt (Official Law Gazette) with which the Proof law (dated June 07, 1939) and the rules and regulations of the Proof law of of July 08, 1939 were published on July 15, 1939. An important date, as in Article 20, first paragraph is stated: this law will come into effect six months after publication = on January 15, 1940.

Next two scans are showing an abstract of the most important portions of the proof act, published in "Blatt für Patent-, Muster- und Zeichenwesen", 1939, pages 131/132, where the proof markings are shown.

No swastikas, no NSDAP - just a normal Law created and published during the III. Reich period.



Download Attachment: BeschussG_RGBl.jpg
126.42KB

Download Attachment: BeschussG_PMZ1939-1.jpg
90.86KB

Download Attachment: BeschussG_PMZ1939-2.jpg
172.05KB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,325 Posts
Pancho, Martin, Geezer:
I do now see the confusion between Eagle/N and Eagle/swastika proofs in Pancho's previous posts, but it in no way changes the point that he is trying to make(if I may paraphrase) - "German goverment 1933-1945 = German NSDAP party. Same holds true for the Russian Soviet goverment and the Russian Communist Party - they are essentially one and the same...
My appologies, Pancho, if I have mistakenly interpreted your statement...
Secondly, we have not yet answered the original inquiry: Although the Eagle/N law went into effect Jan 15, 1940, when did the individual weapons manufacturers actually began applying the new stamp on the guns?
Val
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,288 Posts
quote:Although the Eagle/N law went into effect Jan 15, 1940, when did the individual weapons manufacturers actually began applying the new stamp on the guns?
Val,

thanks for coming back to the original inquiry! Well, the manufactureres did not apply the proof markings on the guns. Proof markings were applied on the weapons by clerks (executivs, should "clerk" be the wrong term) of the "Beschußamt", what is a state authority. Granting/applying the proof markings on a gun is an act of state here (aslo in Belgium, Austria, France, UK, Czech Republic, and so on).
Anyway: the proof markings were used from January 15 - plus one or two days, depending on availability of the new stamp dies. In Suhl, the new dies were present and were first used on January 16, 1940. At least, this is , what the manager of the Suhl proof house told us in 1998. And this date is also used on the current brochure of the Suhl proof house. I don't know, when the new dies were available in Zella-Mehlis and in Oberndorf.

Martin
P.S.: if you want it to be simple (German Government = NSDAP), that's OK.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,325 Posts
Martin:
Thank you for the info...
By the way, did these "clerks" apply the stamps themselves, or just approved the paperwork for the stamps to be applied by the factory workers? Also, did they inspect every gun individually, or relied on the reports of the factory staff?
Happy Holidays.
Val
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Val,

I agree with you, except for the issue of confusion. There is no confusion regarding the proofmarks.

Initially, Martin ignored the actual proofs, and referred to the law, and to documents to support his statement, and these documents neither support his statement, nor do they reflect the actual proofmarks, though the first image he posted clearly shows the wreathed swastika, which reflects the universally held belief that the proof mark was associated with, approved, and sanctioned by the Nazi party. I don't see anything in those documents that suggest that the Nazi party did not have anything to do with the swastika. Remember his statement:

"The NSDAP had nothing to do with the application of the change in design of the proof mark."

Martin was patently wrong. His was a finite statement, allowing for a singular interpretation, offering neither nuance nor an alternate meaning. There was no gray area. He was in error. His assertion was preposterous. His was a "flat world" argument, which can be countered by a parallel logic--the world is round, and, in 1940 Germany, the swastika was the Nazi party.

A postion like Martin's is easily defeated by this relatively simple application of logic. But, additionally, since he referred to laws and documents, rather than to the actual proofmark, I cited other laws, ie. 1933 decree by Goebbels; post war legislation by the allies; and similar laws by the current German state, which countered his assertion.

In a nutshell, one of our positions was crazy. I know that I would feel foolish if I were to say that the swastika has nothing to do with the Nazis, or if I were to say that the world is flat. I assumed that Matin would share my sentiment if I could show him that he was in error, and that he would correct his statement. It seems as though he has acknowledged his error, although his flippant remark, "So what?" seems to indicate that he places a different value on accuracy than do I.

I know that no one is infallible. We need to be careful about what we write. People read these things. This is a busy and active forum, brim full of knowledgeable collectors. I have made postings that were in error, and that error was made evident to me by other contributors, and I promptly admitted my error and expressed my appreciation for the help. That is the basis for this, and any other forum--to share information. If one is wrong, then sublimate your ego, acknowledge your error, and move on-- continue to discuss pistols. It's fun to talk about pistols.

As far as continuing this argument, I can't go on with it. It is an inane pursuit--like trying to convince a ludite that electicity is good. It can't be done, because the substantive issue is sublimated to the idiosyncracies of a particular philosophy. I don't think the field is pistols. I think the field is psychology, when one's ability to reason is trumped by ego--must win at all cost.

I am only interested in talking about pistols, and would prefer to do so, but I am unable to resist a debate that involves fundamental and clear truths.

Again, Martin, I did not intend any offense, and I am appreciative of your postings. I will always read them and enjoy them. Same for Val.
My advice is, let's move on to pistols.

Pancho
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Hello Men,
I want you to see this respone that was emailed to me directly. It is followed by my response, and then the source code. Make no mistake about this, I absolutely know that this yellow racist is not representative of the members of this forum, but he says that he is a member, and I believe someone probably knows who he is. He included a false email address.
Ed, do you know who he is?
Pancho
PS. He is unhappy that I am a Mexican-American, and then he calls me a liberal. Some of you know me, and might know that I am a Viet-Nam era vet, my father was a WW2 vet, and my grandfather was a WW1 vet. I am a Republican, originally from Dallas, a life time member of the NRA, a Harvard graduate, and recently sent a $2,000 donation to preserve the Ronald Regan Ranch. My first republican vote was for President Nixon. I also ring the bell at Christmas time for the Salvation Army. I am very proud both of my heritage, and of my conservative credentials. It would have taken a loaded shotgun to have made me vote for John Kerry. I despise racist, and seek to undo them. I hope that we can do something about this racist clod member that emailed me.

The email sent to me directly:

[email protected] wrote:
> Dear Mr. Panchello:
>
> I like you enjoy gunboards.com and visit it on a regular basis. I have decided to write you under a bogus e mail address as not to give my identity away. This should not come as a surprise as you have chosen to keep you name a secret on gunboards.com. This surprised me as most of the members that I have looked at have their name posted so my guess is that you have something to hide.
>
> As far as your discussion goes with Martin regarding When did the NSDAP begin to apply their nitro proof?, Please do yourself a favor and stand down! Your posting reflect you as idiot. You keep trying to be so correct and you got you head in the wrong area. I as I would guess many of us wonder why or how do you think you are an expert in this matter? I speak for many of us that we are tired of you posting.
>
> Also, you pictures that you post of you guns all field striped seem to be strange and not necessary. What are you trying to state, that you are able to field strip you guns, big deal.
>
> I would guess from where you are located, Mass/New England explains why you are the way you are. I would guess you are a democrat as well and love the Clinton's & Kennedy's as well.
>
> Get off your high horses. You have my pity for being half mexican as well.
>
> member

My response:
You should post on the forum, then I wouldn't believe you to be a racist fool and an coward, just a racist fool. I guarantee you would not make your statement to my face without pissing in your panties and spitting out your teeth. I'm going to post your email on the forum so that everyone can know you, [email protected].
Pancho

Source Code:
From - Thu Dec 23 10:43:46 2004
X-UIDL: 1039375473.4908
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from mr10.mrf.mail.rcn.net (EHLO mr10.mrf.mail.rcn.net) (207.172.4.29)
by ms01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (MOS 3.5.6-GR FastPath queued)
with ESMTP id JBT65481;
Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:00:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mx02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (mx02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.51])
by mr10.mrf.mail.rcn.net (MOS 3.5.6-GR)
with ESMTP id BLO55895;
Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:00:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imo-m26.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.7])
by mx02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #7)
id 1ChUSB-0005nm-00
for [email protected]; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:00:35 -0500
Received: from [email protected]
by imo-m26.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id a.9a.1c77291e (1320)
for <[email protected]>; Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:00:16 -0500 (EST)
From: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:00:16 EST
Subject: Regarding Gunboards.com
To: [email protected]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1103814016"
X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5035
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0452-1, 12/22/2004), Inbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean


-------------------------------1103814016
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,719 Posts
Pancho, I have no clue to who he is, but he sounds like a stupid friggin idiot.

If I find out he is a member here, he won't be past 5 seconds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Ed,

This forum is one of the nicest, most beneficial, and well run sites on the net. I've never had a problem here, and I know that any debate re. pistol collections has never escalated to this sort of low stuff. Everyone I've every talked to on this forum has been honorable. This is absolutely NOT a reflection of this forum. Everyone knows that.

In my entire life, I've only encountered two other racial incidents, and they both happened before I was 13 years old--schoolboy things of little importance. There has been approximately a 40 year gap between the schoolyard and this email.

The U.S. is not a racist country--it is exactly the opposite. I think the "racism" card comes from the liberal deck and that it is typically exploited, surprisingly, to foster a racist environment, ie. reverse discrimination admission standards in colleges and universities that punish hard working students, and reward students that did not works as hard. From my experience, the only institutionalized racism in the U.S. is the result of ill designed programs emanating from our government since the 1960s, and the only individualized racism spews from dolts, like the fellow with the email.

I think that what actually angered me is that this fellow called me a liberal.

Thanks,
Pancho
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
16,719 Posts
Thanks, was a bit short in my reply, slightly different answer would be;

we won't tolerate that kind of crap, it takes too much effort and we'd rather talk guns, :)

Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,424 Posts
Pancho,

I sincerely regret that this Forum has decended to such a level and hope that you do not take statements posted anonymously on the internet to heart. I am sure that the great majority of contributors appreciate your efforts to make the Forum as informative and erudite as it unquestionably is.

To get back to what I am certain is a misunderstanding between contibutors, you are undoubtedly correct in that the governing political party influences the passing of laws and regulations within any state.

But this does not automatically infer that a law passed during a Republican or Democratic term is automatically associated with a political party. Thus, a law governing the proof marks on weapons, passed during the Nazi era in Germany is not automatically considered as a Nazi law, whereas the racist "Nurenberg Laws" certainly are. The Nazi symbols were adapted and adopted as symbols of state in Germany during the Nazi era and this makes any distinction between political party and state even more difficult - as in any other dictatorship.

I think we can accept Sauerfan´s research as conclusive

... and wish you all a peaceful and very happy Christmas holiday.

Patrick
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top