Any Ideas on This Cross w/Swords (opinions appreciated) *

[compressore]

Climate

Considering the fact that the managing director was born in 1968 I would think that she has no first nor second hand and not even third hand knowledge about the time in question. For everybody who knows the political climate in Germany nowadays it is 100% clear that nobody at S&L would make any other statement than what she did.

Hello,
I do not agree with this statement.
A lot of companies have a TR history and are still well on the market, supplying all kind of products and services to the government.
The German government is encouraging companies to look into their history, especially in the TR area as there is a well understanding on the historical background.

In addition, I have worked for a mid-sized German defence company...grown out of a well know TR company. It was amazing what information were still available about this time in the memories of employees, even no of them had first hand knowlegde. In smaller companies, traditions and stories are surving a long time.

Regards
Christian

[Dietrich Maerz]

Gentry,

I have no idea why you are reacting like this and I don't like that I have to answer to these accusations which have nothing to do with this topic anymore. If you don't want me to answer or question your theories, please say so and I will be quiet.

I am glad to see you acknowledge that there was NO mention of a 935 cross (a cross associated only with S&L), as you claimed, in the Revue article.

I never "claimed" that. What is wrote is: "Even the choice of the RKs fits the post-war production types of S&L: the "935" silver B-Type for 32 DM or the Neusilber frame one for 19 DM." I cleary said it fits the S&L post war production.

Rather than apologize for this bit of dangerous and misleading exaggeration on your part, however, you blithely, and totally incorrectly, go on to cast aspersions on me (!) for not posting a part of the article where Herr Knoth said he got his medals from S&L, as though I was trying to hide something, even though I had already clearly said here [in Post #45] that he mentioned in the article that S&L was his "principal supplier". Apparently, you are either not reading very closely or don't care what you say.

No comment ....

It is very interesting that you keep track of my persumed "mistakes". This reminds me of a common court tactics of discrediting the witness. "Look people, he was making a misleading statement on May 3 and June 12, he must also be wrong today!"
Well, it might work with one or two readers here.... especially those with S&L post-war products.

You are so prejudiced towards anything involving S&L that you have lost all perspective in your eagerness to simply criticize and condemn, whether the facts justify it or not, or whether your supposed foundation for criticism is accurate or not.
I do not know what is going on, but you cannot claim the high ground in discussions regarding S&L. It has become simply a pre-judged vendetta.

If you want me to agree to everything you say about S&L, please say so in the open. But don't use the tactics to try "destroy" my person and become personal. It was not me who brought up the Revue article, one of the strongest arguments ever for S&L producing after the war.
I kindly ask you to leave it like that. I will no longer post in this thread and you can write whatever you want. This topic is not worth destroying relations and I am not in a mood to fight over this with you.

[Leroy]

People (and this of course includes you and me), as they always do, will form their own conclusions. This is their absolute right.

You will not agree with me, and I will not agree with you, concerning everything about S&L (although it is likely that we actually do agree on 90% of the basics). There is no difficulty with that.

[Thomas Durante]

Hi guys,

If it were so taboo to possess or produce or wear swastika-bearing awards in the 1950s, why would Knoth so readily pronounce his involvement in such an activity openly in the Revue article in 1953 and also mention his supplier (S&L) by name?

If we look at S&L's line of 1957 badges, you can find plenty of evidence that they modified their wartime tooling to create the 1957 dies (i.e., took the original dies and removed the swastika). This is based on the fact that the swastika was removed, but the rest of the badge looks exactly the same, even down to the tiniest of flaws and die characteristics. Wouldn't this suggest that S&L still had their wartime tools in their possession in 1956 and 1957, which was then modified to create the 1957 designs and dies. This would seem to contradict the notion of some other entity having the S&L dies in the 1950s IMO.

Tom

[Leroy]

By 1953, as the Cold War solidified and the Western Allies and Germany were more and more favorably inclined towards the reincarnation of some sort of German military, working together hand-in-hand with other Western forces as a bulwark against Communism, I believe these taboos were fading away rapidly. The Revue article, although certainly involving real people, could well have been just a convenient "plant" as a news story to make Germans feel good and make the Russians nervous. Who knows now?

I subscribe to the idea (as I mentioned earlier) that the S&L dies were spirited away for some period of time, but I also believe that by the early to mid-50's they were "back home". Maybe not all at once, but gradually and eventually totally. I don't believe for a second that the owners of S&L didn't know where they were.

[Legion Condor]

Hi,

I personally believe that the tools after the war were a certain time at S & L and was also used. A little later they were taken away.

But the exact times and places where they were taken down, we will never find out. Even the Revue report will not really help. As they said Leroy can also have been a little propaganda.

One should and could never believe everything in the newspapers, we should not forget just a good story can be good selling.

It is always an exciting story about S & L stay!

Greeting Hans Günter

[Robert T.]

By 1953, as the Cold War solidified and the Western Allies and Germany were more and more favorably inclined towards the reincarnation of some sort of German military, working together hand-in-hand with other Western forces as a bulwark against Communism, I believe these taboos were fading away rapidly. The Revue article, although certainly involving real people, could well have been just a convenient "plant" as a news story to make Germans feel good and make the Russians nervous. Who knows now?

I subscribe to the idea (as I mentioned earlier) that the S&L dies were spirited away for some period of time, but I also believe that by the early to mid-50's they were "back home". Maybe not all at once, but gradually and eventually totally. I don't believe for a second that the owners of S&L didn't know where they were.

By 1953... or much earlier...?

Shaping the political and economic arena

At first, Germany was administered by the Four Powers, each with its own occupation zone. In time, Germans themselves began to play a role in the governing of these zones. Political parties were formed, and, within months of the war's end, the first elections were held. Although most people were concerned with mere physical survival, much was accomplished in rebuilding cities, fashioning a new economy, and integrating the millions of refugees from the eastern areas of Germany that had been lost after the war.

By early 1946, the Western Allies--the United States and Britain in particular had become convinced that Soviet expansionism had to be contained; its antidemocratic behaviour persuaded Western leaders that the Soviet Union was aiming for communist domination of Europe. Churchill's use of the expression "Iron Curtain" to describe the Soviet cordoning off of a sphere of influence in Europe illustrated a basic change in attitude toward Soviet intentions on the part of Western leaders. As a result of this change, Germany came to be seen more as a potential ally than as a defeated enemy

The change in attitude led United States officials to take a more active role in Germany. A notable early example of this policy change was a speech given in Stuttgart in September 1946 by the United States secretary of state, James F. Byrnes, proposing the transfer of administrative functions from the existing military governments to a single civilian German administration. Byrnes stated that the United States had not defeated the Nazi dictatorship to keep Germans suppressed but instead wanted them to become a free, self-governing, and prosperous people. The speech was the first significant indication that Germany was not to remain an outcast but was, according to Byrnes, to have "an honorable place among the free and peace-loving nations of the world."

Britain had the least ambitious plans for its zone. However, British authorities soon realized that unless Germany became economically self-sufficient, British taxpayers would bear the expense of feeding its population.

To facilitate Germany economic self-sufficiency, United States and British occupation policies soon merged, and by the beginning of 1947 their zones had been joined into one economic area-the Bizone.
After a difficult beginning, the Bizone proved itself a success, its population of 40 million began to benefit from an improving economy. Only in the spring of 1949, after a period of sustained economic growth, did the French occupation zone join the Bizone, creating the Trizone.

The complete breakdown of east-west allied cooperation and joint administration in Germany became clear with the Soviet imposition of the Berlin Blockade that was enforced from June 1948 to May 1949. The Trizone became the Federal Republic of Germany in May 1949, and the Soviets followed suit in October 1949 with the establishment of the German Democratic Republic (GDR). In the west, the occupation officially continued until May 5, 1955.




[IMG][/IMG]

[Legion Condor]

By 1953, as the Cold War solidified and the Western Allies and Germany were more and more favorably inclined towards the reincarnation of some sort of German military, working together hand-in-hand with other Western forces as a bulwark against Communism, I believe these taboos were fading away rapidly. The Revue article, although certainly involving real people, could well have been just a convenient "plant" as a news story to make Germans feel good and make the Russians nervous. Who knows now?

I subscribe to the idea (as I mentioned earlier) that the S&L dies were spirited away for some period of time, but I also believe that by the early to mid-50's they were "back home". Maybe not all at once, but gradually and eventually totally. I don't believe for a second that the owners of S&L didn't know where they were.

Hi Leroy,

they think that the report is a propaganda fairy tale?
No I do not think!
He was a bit nicer than it actually was written, but the principle is already all be true.

A pure propaganda factory it was not, maybe a little.
He confirmed my experience with the S & L Spanienkruze quite well.

The einziege difference is just the date I was told, but the current head of S & L can not know exactly to 3 years determined.
So it was not 1950 as she said, more special in 1955 went as the tools.


Greeting Hans Günter

[Leroy]

Hi Leroy,

they think that the report is a propaganda fairy tale?
No I do not think!
He was a bit nicer than it actually was written, but the principle is already all be true.

Hi, Hans Günter- NO! I do not think it was a "propaganda fairy tale". I think they were real people and Knoth was really selling medals. (Whether all or some were "original", as claimed, we have no way of knowing, nor do we know if he really only sold, as claimed, to individuals who could produce paperwork that they were "entitled". I would hope that he did.) Do I think that the story was useful as "propaganda"of some form and would have been looked on favorably by certain people? Yes, I do.

Did you know and deal with Herr Knoth? It would be great to know from you more about him.

You now think the tools went away in 1955?? What about what Tom says about the dies for 1957 versions being made from the wartime dies?

In any case, you have demonstrated very well that you can detect the postwar copies. That is what counts.

[speedytop]

Hi Leroy,

once more my question:

"Can you please specify your "immediate postwar years" as a time period, up to 19..?"

Uwe

[Leroy]

OK, Uwe, just for you.

For military pieces, May, 1945 - @1950. I say "@1950" in deference to your previous claims. The only time documented piece I have ever seen is an S&L set of Oakleaves and Swords given to the widow of FW Leopold Steinbatz by a squadron mate in the mid-1950's (I believe 1955, but I don't have the reference in front of me). It has the flaws which were not present, as far as we have been able to determine so far, on wartime pieces.

For "sports pieces" (your specialty) I have no way of knowing one way or the other, as I understand (from you and others) that some pieces were officially allowed by Occupation authorities to be restruck, in altered form.

Now, please show the entire Revue article so I can correct any misstatement I may have made. I have gone back through many, many postings and only find bits and pieces of the article, which is not shown in its entirety anywhere here (that I see). I am glad that you apparently have a copy of the full article.

As I have said hundreds of times before, if anyone has actual, documented, proof of earlier new strikings and new production of military pieces by S&L, with examples for review, I would be delighted to see it. This has been an open invitation for years and I am simply requesting some proof.

[Norm F]

Hi Guys,

I don't wish to wade into any debate but returning to Hans Günter's study, he has described and illustrated a continuum from wartime-compatible construction Spanish Crosses to hybrid construction of leftovers with post-war components through to completely post-war construction pieces. This type of activity of course is not new, and the same has been described in some S&L war badges, but it's nice to see similar observations play out for other awards. Hans Günter has stated that we can't know the actual year when the transitions between these awards occurred but for now it's enough to see that the transitions exist.

I don't see the utility in debating whether the striking of new planchets began in 1946 or 1949 or 1955 or 1960, etc. No doubt there were vast amounts of leftover components to contribute to post-war assembly and hybrids for years, and no doubt the amount of leftovers would differ for each award so that it's probably unrealistic to expect that striking of all the different post-war awards would begin simultaneously in the same year. And yes, this production could have been by S&L themselves or alternatively by a 3rd party using their tools, but that too is almost irrelevant. What matters here is not what we cannot yet know but what we do know so far, and that is we repeatedly see evidence for a transition from post-war assembly to post-war production.

And whether we like it or not there are likely many "fine wartime originals" that are in fact simply "wartime compatible" construction from the early post-war era. For now we have to content ourselves with our definitions of what constitutes "wartime compatible" construction for each award, and continue to search for provenance and corroboration when available to support those definitions. And when it comes to S&L (and maybe other makers as well) even our classic "wartime compatible" products (especially when unworn) carry some degree of risk for having been assembled post-war from wartime leftovers.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Norm F]

I further speculated that the third party might be Souval, who I believed could have had an "arrangement" with S&L to manufacture outside of Germany (where manufacture was illegal), possibly even using S&L dies and hardware.

Just a quick comment regarding the Souval connection. While we cannot currently know the true nature of the relationship between S&L and Souval, it is not just speculation to state there was indeed some kind of connection. There have been many discussions on this topic in the '57 collecting community with numerous examples of shared designs and hardware between the two makers in '57 products. We also see a run of the S&L wartime design Blockade Breaker badge with a Lüdenscheid-style block hinge and stamped L/58 by Souval which is intriguing and easily spotted since the S&L BB design is markedly different from the wartime Souval BB design.

If it were only a matter of Souval acquiring some of S&L's wartime tooling through some other connection then we wouldn't see the overlap in their '57 production as well, so the inference is a more direct business interaction between the two. So speculation comes into play only when considering the possible variations of that relationship, not in the basic existence of a relationship.

Best regards,
---Norm

[Leroy]

Norm - Thanks for bringing up that Blockade Breaker example. I have been hesitant to venture into specific pieces because there are so many here more qualified to do so than me.

As you say, Hans Günter has been able to demonstrate the progression of badge appearance we have come to expect in this field. First we have wartime (or what I would personally call "fully wartime compatible"), followed by a slight change in appearance through different mounting of hardware and the appearance of a minor flaw -which he acknowledges is something which could have appeared either wartime or after - followed by a third version - this time in silver - but evidencing unremoved flashing around the eagles, the flaw above the eagle's head, and revised hardware, with the silver plating being "OK" but not what we would expect on a wartime piece (this piece being one which, to me at least, is the first one I would feel 100% safe calling "postwar") (the second one only 50%), followed by a final piece bearing a mark used by the "Hero" and having enough other different characteristics from the "fully wartime compatible" piece to confidently set aside. The third piece (the silver one) was said by the owner to have been acquired mid-1955, while the fourth (with the " Hero L/16" ) can be said to have appeared in the 1980's.

The first one is easy, the second a "maybe", the third and fourth confidently postwar. Hans Günter believes the second to be from 1946-50, although that is not confirmed.

To me, now, only the progression itself is important. The ones which you can say definitely to be postwar are "off" in construction, color, finishing and/or marking. I do not see, in the absence of exact and indisputable proof for a specific individual "type", how we will ever do any better.

[Legion Condor]

Hi Guys,

I don't wish to wade into any debate but returning to Hans Günter's study, he has described and illustrated a continuum from wartime-compatible construction Spanish Crosses to hybrid construction of leftovers with post-war components through to completely post-war construction pieces. This type of activity of course is not new, and the same has been described in some S&L war badges, but it's nice to see similar observations play out for other awards. Hans Günter has stated that we can't know the actual year when the transitions between these awards occurred but for now it's enough to see that the transitions exist.

I don't see the utility in debating whether the striking of new planchets began in 1946 or 1949 or 1955 or 1960, etc. No doubt there were vast amounts of leftover components to contribute to post-war assembly and hybrids for years, and no doubt the amount of leftovers would differ for each award so that it's probably unrealistic to expect that striking of all the different post-war awards would begin simultaneously in the same year. And yes, this production could have been by S&L themselves or alternatively by a 3rd party using their tools, but that too is almost irrelevant. What matters here is not what we cannot yet know but what we do know so far, and that is we repeatedly see evidence for a transition from post-war assembly to post-war production.

And whether we like it or not there are likely many "fine wartime originals" that are in fact simply "wartime compatible" construction from the early post-war era. For now we have to content ourselves with our definitions of what constitutes "wartime compatible" construction for each award, and continue to search for provenance and corroboration when available to support those definitions. And when it comes to S&L (and maybe other makers as well) even our classic "wartime compatible" products (especially when unworn) carry some degree of risk for having been assembled post-war from wartime leftovers.

Best regards,
---Norm

You bring everything to the right point, thank you!

Greeting Hans Günter