'Better than' is not always good enough (HRW)

[ting]

'Better than' is not always good enough
By IAIN LEVINE

Human Rights Watch has come under fire recently, accused of bias, an excessive focus on one country, lacking credibility and impartiality and even promoting terrorism.

UN investigator Richard Goldstone in Gaza.
Photo: AP

"HRW [has] no credibility," says a cabinet minister. "Human Rights Watch is at our throat again," complains a newspaper editorial, "singling out" the country. A ruling party spokesman says a report on Gaza lacks "objectivity and impartiality." A government Web site claims Human Rights Watch is adopting "a Goebbelsian approach" and "repeat[s] lies about the country, its government and people as often and as long as possible to make the world believe it is the truth."

Those complaints might sound familiar to anyone who's followed the Netanyahu government's campaign to discredit Human Rights Watch (and anyone else who reports on Israeli abuses.) The Prime Minister's Office has questioned HRW's methods and motives, falsely accused it of taking Saudi government funding and even of working on behalf of Hamas.

But the quotes above come from very different sources: Syria, Gulf News of the United Arab Emirates, Hamas and Sri Lanka.

IT'S UNUSUAL for governments to welcome HRW's reporting on their human rights violations, although many conscientious officials modify laws and behavior once abuses have been publicized. And it's easy to dismiss the knee-jerk reaction of governments when they try to shoot (or smear) the messenger.

But HRW also grapples with fair-minded critiques. Many ask, how we can rely on witness testimony when two sides are locked in combat - how we can believe accounts of abuses committed by the enemy? And how will we learn of abuses by their own side? The answer is by taking the interviewing process very seriously, conducting multiple, lengthy interviews in private, collecting details to corroborate or dismiss the statements and weighing all evidence, whether it supports or undermines that testimony.



HRW makes a point of seeking out as many viewpoints as possible - including that of military forces, government officials and alleged perpetrators.

Sometimes they refuse to meet with us - as is the position taken by the Netanyahu government. We have met the IDF in the past to seek information, explain our findings and discuss recommendations. But since Operation Cast Lead we have had no response to our questions, despite repeated requests for information or meetings, just dismissal of our reports as biased or misinformed, complaints that we do not reflect the government's point of view and pleas that we trust Israeli officials to investigate themselves.

But those investigations have yet to determine why so many Palestinian civilians were killed in Operation Cast Lead. It is understandable that many Israel supporters would rather believe the Netanyahu government: Threatened by Hamas (and Israel's other enemies), they rely on the government for protection. Yet ignoring IDF abuses doesn't make them disappear or make Israel any safer. Human rights abuses fan resentment and resistance, perpetuating violence.

THE DIVERSIONARY arguments aren't novel, such as the claim that HRW shouldn't investigate Israel's behavior because others are worse or because Israel is a democratic society. The Gulf News thinks HRW should lay off the UAE because it is an "open society," as if abuses by open societies are unknown - a logic by which we should also have ignored the Bush administration's torture and detention without trial.

The Syrian minister quoted above argued that "American organizations, including HRW, have no credibility. Let them go check the violations undertaken by the previous administration from Guantanamo... the violations of human rights in Gaza before they talk about other countries."

Similarly, some critics of HRW accuse us of ignoring abuses by Hamas and Hizbullah, or by undemocratic Arab regimes, to focus unfairly on Israel -allegations that would be refuted by a look at our Web site, with its extensive reporting on everything from US torture to Palestinian suicide bombings, rocket attacks on Israel and repression across the Middle East.

Sri Lankan officials say raising the alarm about the internment of 280,000 civilians shows HRW's "persistent desire to attack Sri Lanka to achieve the goals [of] the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam)" - as if working to stop abuses by one side means supporting the other side. A Hamas spokesman dismissed HRW's report on Kassam rockets for "lacking objectivity and impartiality" and putting "the executioner and the victim on the same footing," as if the side that sees itself victimized (which almost everyone does) need not respect human rights. And HRW is pro-Zionist to some critics, such as Iran, in part because it does not ****ounce on the Palestinians "right of resistance" to a militarily superior power, even though we never ****ounce on the legitimacy of going to war.

HRW makes an honest attempt to address the most serious human rights violations by each side to a conflict, in as objective a manner as possible, and that often means delivering uncomfortable news. The easy response is to demonize the messenger, as has happened to our work on China, Colombia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Hizbullah, Morocco, Russia, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Is that really the company Israel wants to keep?

The writer is program director at Human Rights Watch where he oversees research and reporting across the organization's regional and thematic programs. He has more than 25 years experience in humanitarian and human rights work.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251804521698&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I think this article is a good response to the critical comments by different governments against Human Rights Watch. Especially criticism by Israeli politicians against them.

[RoyB]

Is that the same organization that is funded by Saudi Arabia? oops.

[brainplay]

Human Rights Watch has come under fire recently, accused of bias, an excessive focus on one country, lacking credibility and impartiality and even promoting terrorism.

Recently? When are they not under fire? Their bias comes from the failure to differentiate between human rights and liberties. They also have a habit of rejecting national laws and policy for their own standards and claim violations. Sometimes they get it right. Sometimes they're off their rockers.

[SOG]

Sometimes they get it right. Sometimes they're off their rockers.

True, it's a blend of the biased. But eh, what else is new especially concerning Palestine. Is Palestine official state yet? Just do it already so the next time they pull a fast one they can be officially bombed for officially going to war.

[GB_FXST]

HRW’s anti-Israel bias is clearly made evident when they participate in events dedicated to the deionization and de-legitimization of Israel.




HRW Plays Prominent Role at UN Mini-Durban Conference

NGO Monitor
July 30, 2009




On July 22-24, 2009, the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People held an NGO conference “to discuss questions related to Israeli violations of international humanitarian law.” The context of Palestinian attacks was not on the agenda.
Participants in this exercise included Palestinian NGOs such as Badil, PCHR, and Al Haq, as well as Human Rights Watch and Israeli NGOs Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I), Keshev, and Adalah.
HRW promoted the campaign to prevent Israel from purchasing weapons, led by Amnesty International, and demanded “on-going international pressure” on Israel. HRW’s participation provides further evidence of bias against Israel.
One speaker from the Palestinian Ma’an News Agency accused Jews of “buying everything” and controlling a “global machine, money,” and another expressed “extreme disappointment” that Palestinian war crimes were even mentioned in passing.
Most NGO representatives expressed support for “lawfare” cases in European courts and international forums against Israeli military and government officials.


http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/hrw_plays_prominent_role_at_un_mini_durban_conference (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/hrw_plays_prominent_role_at_un_mini_durban_conference)


What they may have to say about country X is irrelevant when they actively undermine and subvert Israel. To quote Larry Derfner:



Joining a movement that advertises its thoroughgoing malice for Israel, and that means to wreck it, not save it, is dishonorable.


At any rate, HRW should now be worrying about Marc Garlasco’s collection of Nazi memorabilia.

[marlowwe]

HRW’s anti-Israel bias is clearly made evident when they participate in events dedicated to the deionization and de-legitimization of Israel.


If by bias you mean more attention is paid to Israeli war crimes, then yes, HRW is "biased". It's obvious why - the Israeli state overwhelmingly outdoes Hamas in human rights violations and should therefore be subjected to more criticism.



What they may have to say about country X is irrelevant when they actively undermine and subvert Israel. To quote Larry Derfner:

Joining a movement that advertises its thoroughgoing malice for Israel, and that means to wreck it, not save it, is dishonorable.


Save it from what?

[delio]

[David Bernstein, September 9, 2009 at 9:54pm (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_06-2009_09_12.shtml#1252547654)]

Human Rights Watch Responds (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_06-2009_09_12.shtml#1252547654): It's only sporting to publish the response HRW's press office has sent regarding its Nazi memorabilia obsessed military analyst, Marc Garlasco:
Several blogs and others critical of Human Rights Watch have suggested that Marc Garlasco, Human Rights Watch's longtime senior military advisor, is a Nazi sympathizer because he collects German (as well as American) military memorabilia.

This accusation is demonstrably false and fits into a campaign to deflect attention from Human Rights Watch’s rigorous and detailed reporting on violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by the Israeli government. Garlasco has co-authored several of our reports on violations of the laws of war, including in Afghanistan, Georgia, and Iraq, as well as by Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Garlasco has never held or expressed Nazi or anti-Semitic views.

Garlasco's grandfather was conscripted into the German armed forces during the Second World War, like virtually all young German men at the time, and served as a radar operator on an anti-aircraft battery. He never joined the Nazi Party, and later became a dedicated pacifist. Meanwhile, Garlasco's great-uncle was an American B-17 crewman, who survived many attacks by German anti-aircraft gunners.

Garlasco own family’s experience on both sides of the Second World War has led him to collect military items related to both sides, including American 8th Air Force memorabilia and German Air Force medals and other objects (not from the Nazi Party or the SS, as falsely alleged). Many military historians, and others with an academic interest in the Second World War, including former and active-duty US service members, collect memorabilia from that era.

Garlasco is the author of a monograph on the history of German Air Force and Army anti-aircraft medals and a contributor to websites that promote serious historical research into the Second World War (and which forbid hate speech). In the foreword he writes of telling his daughters that "the war was horrible and cruel, that Germany lost and for that we should be thankful."

To imply that Garlasco's collection is evidence of Nazi sympathies is not only absurd but an attempt to deflect attention from his deeply felt efforts to uphold the laws of war and minimize civilian suffering in wartime. These falsehoods are an affront to Garlasco and thousands of other serious military historians.
And here (see below) is "serious military historian" Garlasco hanging out in his favorite "Iron Cross" sweatshirt, you know, the one that all the serious military historians wear, but that everyone thinks is a biker shirt (a screenshot from the German Combat Awards website)


http://volokh.com/files/davidb-garlasco-iron-crossretouche-thumb-400x300-small.jpg (http://volokh.com/files/davidb-garlasco-iron-crossretouche-thumb-400x300.jpg)


After Garlasco posted this picture, the following dialogue ensued
Skip: Love the sweatshirt Mark. Not one I could wear here in germany though (well I could but it would be a lot of hassle)

Garlasco: Everyone thinks it is a biker shirt!

Skip: Yeh, were you come from but imagine walking around in Berlin with "das Eisene Kreuz" written across your cheat. Either you get beaten to pulp by a group of rampaging Turks or the police arrest you on suspicion of being a Nazi.

UPDATE: By the way, I don't suggest that Garlasco is a Nazi sympathizer. But I do think it's a rather strange obsession for a human rights investigator who spends much of his time investigating Israel for HRW. Strange because human rights activists aren't typically obsessed with collecting momentoes of Nazi war achievements. As one blogger wrote, it's like an animal rights activist collecting vintage furs. And strange because one would think that HRW, under fire for years for its anti-Israel bias, would not want to hire someone with this rather strange avocation given the obvious p.r. implications (all HRW really has, after all, is its reputation). But then again, if HRW was concerned about its reputation for objectivity, it would start by not hiring pro-Palestinian activists (and no pro-Israel activists) to run and staff its Middle East division. [Put differently, I think HRW poobahs think that being hostile to Israel is an objective position, one that any reasonable person would share.] Solomania has much more (http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2009/09/human-rights-watch-responds-to-garlasco/).



All Related Posts (on one page) (http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1247622550.shtml) | Some Related Posts:


Human Rights Watch Responds:
Is Human Rights Watch's Marc Garlasco A Nazi-Obsessed Collector? (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_06-2009_09_12.shtml#1252419984)

[Mastermind]

My observation on HRW activity. They seem only interested in bitching out nations that are involved in conflict with Muslim dominated nations. they do not seem overly concerned about Muslims dragging white men's bodies down the streets, or beheading jews, or stoning women to death that are buried in rocks up to their thighs. they have very little to say about Muslims murdering christain, as in their mumbling's over the atrocities in Darfur, which, noticeably has vanished from the entire liberal RADAR since O became US president. We hear them bleating loudly when Turk soldier kill several Kurdish terrorists...but, hear almost nothing when Kurds slaughter small villages in Turkey. We hear them gnashing their teeth and ripping their clothes when Russian strike back into Chenya...but, the outrages committed by Chechens, such as at Beslan, HRW says practically nothing....

they are very selective int heir rantings...they don't seem to have much to say about the actions of terrorists or terror groups or drug cartels or even those "silly little" pirates. But, whole, organized, industrial, civilized nations, HRW is hell on wheels if some guard accidentally sets a Koran on the back of toilet, or a few crazy looking Mullahs talk about hijacking while getting on board and airplane....and get asked to stay at the terminal...for HRW, that's a fking outrage.

In essence...in my book, HRW can go blow it out their biased anal cavity!

[marlowwe]

they have very little to say about Muslims murdering christain, as in their mumbling's over the atrocities in Darfur, which, noticeably has vanished from the entire liberal RADAR since O became US president. We hear them bleating loudly when Turk soldier kill several Kurdish terrorists...but, hear almost nothing when Kurds slaughter small villages in Turkey. We hear them gnashing their teeth and ripping their clothes when Russian strike back into Chenya...but, the outrages committed by Chechens, such as at Beslan, HRW says practically nothing....


To gain an understanding of the 'method behind the madness', so to speak, you should ask yourself what do Sudan, Turkey, and Russia have in common?

They are all states and therefore have enormous power. It's one thing for HRW to go after Hamas, for example, which is significantly weaker and commits far fewer crimes than Israel. In other words, HRW goes after the big dogs.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

My observation on HRW activity. They seem only interested in bitching out nations that are involved in conflict with Muslim dominated nations. they do not seem overly concerned about Muslims dragging white men's bodies down the streets, or beheading jews, or stoning women to death that are buried in rocks up to their thighs. they have very little to say about Muslims murdering christain, as in their mumbling's over the atrocities in Darfur, which, noticeably has vanished from the entire liberal RADAR since O became US president. We hear them bleating loudly when Turk soldier kill several Kurdish terrorists...but, hear almost nothing when Kurds slaughter small villages in Turkey. We hear them gnashing their teeth and ripping their clothes when Russian strike back into Chenya...but, the outrages committed by Chechens, such as at Beslan, HRW says practically nothing....

they are very selective int heir rantings...they don't seem to have much to say about the actions of terrorists or terror groups or drug cartels or even those "silly little" pirates. But, whole, organized, industrial, civilized nations, HRW is hell on wheels if some guard accidentally sets a Koran on the back of toilet, or a few crazy looking Mullahs talk about hijacking while getting on board and airplane....and get asked to stay at the terminal...for HRW, that's a fking outrage.

In essence...in my book, HRW can go blow it out their biased anal cavity!Anything negative about Israel or any other democratic modern nation is always going to receive a lot of attention in the media, HRW publishes numerous reports on the Arab / Muslim world that pretty much go unnoticed. I have always found the press of all political hues will not push many negative articles on the Saudis despite their appalling record on human rights. Its not just the Lefties that are in denial.

[RoyB]

If by bias you mean more attention is paid to Israeli war crimes, then yes, HRW is "biased". It's obvious why - the Israeli state overwhelmingly outdoes Hamas in human rights violations and should therefore be subjected to more criticism.

They are all states and therefore have enormous power. It's one thing for HRW to go after Hamas, for example, which is significantly weaker and commits far fewer crimes than Israel. In other words, HRW goes after the big dogs.
What are you smoking?
Hamas doing less crimes than Israel is not even logically possible considering they're a terror organization.

[marlowwe]

Hamas doing less crimes than Israel is not even logically possible considering they're a terror organization.

Hamas is a terror organization - there's no doubt about that. However that does not in any way exclude Israel as a state that participates in terrorism on a much more massive scale.

[GB_FXST]

If by bias you mean more attention is paid to Israeli war crimes, then yes, HRW is "biased". It's obvious why - the Israeli state overwhelmingly outdoes Hamas in human rights violations and should therefore be subjected to more criticism.

... snip ...



Pleas explain how you came to believe that Israel “overwhelmingly outdoes Hamas in human rights violations”?

Lest you forget, Israel an open democratic society with strong liberal principles and institutions, such as freedom of speech, association, and religion, an independent judiciary, political opposition, etc., is an anathema to the totalitarian and theocratic entity that is Hamas.

[brainplay]

They are all states and therefore have enormous power. It's one thing for HRW to go after Hamas, for example, which is significantly weaker and commits far fewer crimes than Israel. In other words, HRW goes after the big dogs.

It's obvious why - the Israeli state overwhelmingly outdoes Hamas in human rights violations and should therefore be subjected to more criticism.

Proof? You'll have a hard time trying to get away with those statements on this board without some documentation that will be scrutinized.

[RoyB]

Hamas is a terror organization - there's no doubt about that. However that does not in any way exclude Israel as a state that participates in terrorism on a much more massive scale.
Choose your words carefully..
Unless you have something to back that up than keep your mouth shut.

[Connaught Ranger]

At any rate, HRW should now be worrying about Marc Garlasco’s collection of Nazi memorabilia.

Why? its a free democratic world the last time I checked, what Mr. Garlasco chooses to do in his free time is his own concern.:roll:

For those members not fully sure what the above refers too, please see:-

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=164778

Connaught Ranger.

[GB_FXST]

Why? its a free democratic world the last time I checked, what Mr. Garlasco chooses to do in his free time is his own concern.:roll:

For those members not fully sure what the above refers too, please see:-

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=164778

Connaught Ranger.

My problem with Garlasco’s hobby, as described ad nauseum in the other thread, is the appearance of impropriety.

Garlasco, by virtue of his chosen profession, is not just some Joe Schmo. He is in the public sphere and subject to extra-ordinary scrutiny. So, he can chose to either 1) work for HRW and critique Israel, or 2) collect Nazi memorabilia. If he chooses to do both, every single one of his criticisms of Israel will be tainted. That is a fact, right or wrong, like it or not.

[timetraveller]

^^^

The man in question isn't here to defend himself nor should be the subject of a vendetta , personal attacks , Judging a man and passing sentence all because of his hobby the same hobby that many members on this forum do Partake .. .

And remember anything personal said against him he has the right to sue . it's not the first time someone has taken a website/individuals to court and won .

[GB_FXST]

^^^

The man in question isn't here to defend himself nor should be the subject of a vendetta , personal attacks , Judging a man and passing sentence all because of his hobby the same hobby that many members on this forum do Partake .. .

And remember anything personal said against him he has the right to sue . it's not the first time someone has taken a website/individuals to court and won .

“Appearance of impropriety” is different than a “claim of impropriety.” I do not believe that I have made the latter. I never called him a Nazi sympathizer. Anyhow, he is welcome to bring suit against me; the publicity would do him nothing but harm.

[timetraveller]

Put yourself in his shows for a min

How would you feel being typcasted if you were him , people labelling you a Nazi with them even known you ....

Every thought about or not willing to view from that position ...

[Connaught Ranger]

My problem with Garlasco’s hobby, as described ad nauseum in the other thread, is the appearance of impropriety.

Garlasco, by virtue of his chosen profession, is not just some Joe Schmo. He is in the public sphere and subject to extra-ordinary scrutiny. So, he can chose to either 1) work for HRW and critique Israel, or 2) collect Nazi memorabilia. If he chooses to do both, every single one of his criticisms of Israel will be tainted. That is a fact, right or wrong, like it or not.

Only in your opinion! :roll:

[Connaught Ranger]

“Appearance of impropriety” is different than a “claim of impropriety.” I do not believe that I have made the latter. I never called him a Nazi sympathizer. Anyhow, he is welcome to bring suit against me; the publicity would do him nothing but harm.

You might check with the owner of this site and the moderators if its ok with them, I for one feel they do not need any adverse publicity that might reflect on the MP.net Forum.

[GB_FXST]

Only in your opinion! :roll:

That an association to Nazism (or Nazi symbols) and a history of critiquing Israel will appear inappropriate or as evidence of bias to Israelis and Jewish people should really be self-evident.



You might check with the owner of this site and the moderators if its ok with them, I for one feel they do not need any adverse publicity that might reflect on the MP.net Forum.

Fair enough. I speak (and spoke) only for myself.

Mods, please let me know if my comments are a liability.

[Connaught Ranger]

That an association to Nazism (or Nazi symbols) and a history of critiquing Israel will appear inappropriate or as evidence of bias to Israelis and Jewish people should really be self-evident.

Fair enough. I speak (and spoke) only for myself.

Mods, please let me know if my comments are a liability.

Unless you have any actual evidence that the person is wearing them, or has actually been quoted publicly as saying he thought the Thurd Reich were the greatest thing since sliced bread, then you are entering the realms of supposition.:roll:

Just because you and others who are like minded see a particular twist to this tale, does not make it anyway factual, and as my old Irish Grandfather used to say: "If fishes were wishes, lad, no one would starve."

Connaught Ranger.

[GB_FXST]

Unless you have any actual evidence that the person is wearing them, or has actually been quoted publicly as saying he thought the Thurd Reich were the greatest thing since sliced bread, then you are entering the realms of supposition.:roll:

Just because you and others who are like minded see a particular twist to this tale, does not make it anyway factual, and as my old Irish Grandfather used to say: "If fishes were wishes, lad, no one would starve."

Connaught Ranger.

I like Irish sayings .. .very wise and apt … :)

However, I do not think that there is any dispute that Garlasco is Flak88 and that Flak88 collected memorabilia and wrote a book on the subject:




... snip …

The blog's research showed that Flak88 is in the habit of collecting various Nazi memorabilia, like medals and insignia, and to post pictures of them on
the forums of similar collectors. In 2007, Flak88 made a posting on a forum
dedicated the Wehrmacht, the Nazi army. "Friends, he wrote, "this year I was lucky and I collected a few items. Most I already had. I hope that you enjoy the pictures." Flak88 added links and documents to the posting, which authenticated them. Apart from that, Flak88 wrote an extensive book, with over 400 pages on collecting Nazi items. The book sold for $100 on Nazi collector forums.

Emma Daly, Communications Director at Human Rights Watch, confirmed to Ma'ariv that Flak88 and Mark Garlasco are the same person. With that she
clarified that the organization denies the suggestions regarding Garlasco's
tendencies. "Mark Garlasco is not pro-Nazi," said Daly, "These allegations
are monstrous. He does not delve into Nazi memorabilia. Garlasco is a
student of military history and he has an interest in military history."

... snip …



This is my latest attempt at making my point:

I enjoy motorcycling, and will occasionally attend motorcycle rallies. The first time I ever attended a motorcycle rally I was shocked to see vendors selling swastikas and other similar paraphernalia. I am no longer surprised by such things, but the visceral disgust and revolution to such objects has never subsided. Maybe it’s just me, maybe I have talked with one too many survivors; or read one too many books; or watched one too many documentaries. But, I doubt it. Rather, I think that there are many others like me who question the objectivity of someone who can relish the collection of such hateful symbols.

With that, I will post no more about Garlasco and this issue.

[Connaught Ranger]

I like Irish sayings .. .very wise and apt … :)

However, I do not think that there is any dispute that Garlasco is Flak88 and that Flak88 collected memorabilia and wrote a book on the subject:

This is my latest attempt at making my point:

I enjoy motorcycling, and will occasionally attend motorcycle rallies. The first time I ever attended a motorcycle rally I was shocked to see vendors selling swastikas and other similar paraphernalia. I am no longer surprised by such things, but the visceral disgust and revolution to such objects has never subsided. Maybe it’s just me, maybe I have talked with one too many survivors; or read one too many books; or watched one too many documentaries. But, I doubt it. Rather, I think that there are many others like me who question the objectivity of someone who can relish the collection of such hateful symbols.

With that, I will post no more about Garlasco and this issue.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion its a democratic world.

But so what, a man wrote a book, on his hobby, collecting T.R. Insignia, and made some money that's not against the law, how about if he collected German Coins and wrote a book on T.R. era coinage, would that make him a nazi?:roll:

I see the word "Fetish" being tossed around here by some as well, I do not consider my Hobby to be a "Fetish", and with regards the question asked where would you display your German T.R. items, they are located on the bottom shelf of my medal display cabinet, I do not give them any "pride of place", but in all reality if you are collecting as I do mainly European Military Medals, then T.R. items are part of the sequence.

I suppose we would be surprised by many Hobby's that people have outside their professional lives.

But do you know the history of the swastika and M.C.C. Clubs, particularly the Hells Angels in the past?

Connaught Ranger

[Jippo]

I find it very good that actually everyone seems to "hate" HRW. They must be actually doing very good job finding everyones wrongdoings and mistakes. :)

[GB_FXST]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion its a democratic world.

But so what, a man wrote a book, on his hobby, collecting T.R. Insignia, and made some money that's not against the law, how about if he collected German Coins and wrote a book on T.R. era coinage, would that make him a nazi?:roll:

I see the word "Fetish" being tossed around here by some as well, I do not consider my Hobby to be a "Fetish", and with regards the question asked where would you display your German T.R. items, they are located on the bottom shelf of my medal display cabinet, I do not give them any "pride of place", but in all reality if you are collecting as I do mainly European Military Medals, then T.R. items are part of the sequence.

I suppose we would be surprised by many Hobby's that people have outside their professional lives.

But do you know the history of the swastika and M.C.C. Clubs, particularly the Hells Angels in the past?

Connaught Ranger

Actually, I do not. Please share your thoughts.

I know at least of one explanation for the original popularity of the WWII German Helmets. The lore that I am aware of goes something along the lines of one dead Nazi soldier for each helmet.

[Connaught Ranger]

Actually, I do not. Please share your thoughts.

I know at least of one explanation for the original popularity of the WWII German Helmets. The lore that I am aware of goes something along the lines of one dead Nazi soldier for each helmet.

In the mid 1950's through the 1960's and later, German biker clubs first took to wearing nazi insignia, so as to taunt the German Police it was their way of giving the finger to the establishment.

I have been told there were some quite savage fights between the police and bikers over the insignia, but when a pack of 20 - 40 bikers were on tour the local country village small town police tended to look the other way.

And the helmets being war surplus were dirt cheap and fulfilled the regulation stating that a helmet must be worn when on the machine.

This then carried over to American Bike Clubs, particularly the "Hells Angels"

while there was no law against wearing the insignia in the U.S.A. it was seen as a sign against

the establishment.

Strangely enough copies of modified Iron Crosses began to turn up at Surf meets in the 1960's
in California another sign of the "Rebel".

Connaught Ranger.

[GB_FXST]

Interesting. Thanks for the follow-up. I have heard variations on this theme before. I always knew that there was some educational value to watching documentaries on the History Channel … :)

[Connaught Ranger]

Interesting. Thanks for the follow-up. I have heard variations on this theme before. I always knew that there was some educational value to watching documentaries on the History Channel … :)

Most of my information comes from books not t.v.:)