no one gets big $$ for interviews,..........that's only for the hollywood stars.
i've never paid anything, other then attention, and maybe a meal, for any of my interviews.
Famous photograph, what is his story?
Moderator: sniper1shot
-
mightythor99
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:55 am
- Location: Indiana, USA
sad to say,................but NO ONE pays big $$
to interview these wwii veterans. if someone made me "pay" to interview them,...........i'd have to wonder just what the hell they were going to tell me for that $$, and it would probably not be the "truth" that you got either.........it would be exactly what they think you wanted to hear,....a story.
no one gets big $$ for interviews,..........that's only for the hollywood stars.
i've never paid anything, other then attention, and maybe a meal, for any of my interviews.
no one gets big $$ for interviews,..........that's only for the hollywood stars.
i've never paid anything, other then attention, and maybe a meal, for any of my interviews.
I am interested in buying / trading for photo albums, photo groupings, diaries, feldpost groupings,etc, from any country in the world, any army/navy, etc, mostly 20th century!!
Offering payment would certainly be the last resort and dependant on what he may be willing to divulge, but given. Certainly a before and after shot of him holding that photo of him would be a minimal request (and be a remarkable one at that), followed by his name and short summary of his life since then.
Certainly flying him back to Poteau on location to the very spot the photo was taken to retell his story and perhaps also get one of the US survivors of the ambush (who has been contacted before and freely offers his time) would make astonishing footage and be the ultimate objective. Two sides of the story. That whole location still looks almost exactly as it did in '44 (even that hut is still there!). Old enemies now friends. The present makes peace with the past. Respects given to fallen comrades. The world becomes a better place. Everyone is happy.
Bull
Certainly flying him back to Poteau on location to the very spot the photo was taken to retell his story and perhaps also get one of the US survivors of the ambush (who has been contacted before and freely offers his time) would make astonishing footage and be the ultimate objective. Two sides of the story. That whole location still looks almost exactly as it did in '44 (even that hut is still there!). Old enemies now friends. The present makes peace with the past. Respects given to fallen comrades. The world becomes a better place. Everyone is happy.
Bull
Excuse the somewhat belated response on this thread. I believe Jean-Paul based the identification of the unit upon what was known of German forces in the vicinity of the Poteau road junction on the day. He had studied the captured film at the Imperial War Museum in London, the annotations to the footage notes appears to support this.Emil wrote:Thank you Simon. Problem is: did Pallud base his theory that we're dealing with 2./SS-Pz.Gr.Rgt.1 on a positive ID of that officer, or does he base the ID of that officer on his theory that we're dealing with members of 2./SS-Pz.Gr.Rgt.1?
A complex problem for anybody who is looking for the facts behind the photo.
Emil
I don't believe this individual has been identified by anyone. Chances are he has already died anyway.
Simon Harrold
WW2 Battlefield Relics: German Erkennungsmarken decoded.
WW2 Battlefield Relics: German Erkennungsmarken decoded.
I seriously doubt if the man mentioned by the museum is really the man in that photo. It sounds like yet another mix-up with the story of SS veteran Walter, who was indeed in the Ardennes as member of the Leibstandarte, who does live in the USA, who does wish to remain anonimous, but is NOT the man in that photo.
I seriously question why you (or anyone else) must think that. If I recall correctly, they said that had actually invited the man to join them for I think the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge in 2004 but he declined. I doubt they are fabricating any of this.TimoWr wrote:I seriously doubt if the man mentioned by the museum is really the man in that photo.
I also know that the names of some of the other less "famous" German soldiers appearing in those series of photos have also been identified by name. This includes SS-Untersturmfuhrer Stiewe who appears in one of the photos underneath an M8. Perhaps he may have been (is) the link to identifying SS-Schutze 'V'.
They definitely have had one of the American verterans, Bill Barton, who was in the first M8 Armoured Car come to the museuem to tel his story in 2003. What an amazing piece of history if these two men ever met each other at that very spot on the road near Poteau.
Bullman
Why I must think that? Fair question. I should have explained. Some of the other "less famous" soldiers in those photos have indeed been identified. Josef Priess and Wilhelm Gilbert. I forwarded their names to Rob when I visited his museum in 2002 and later two Leibstandarte veterans who also visited the museum confirmed to Rob that the names I gave him are correct. However, these veterans never identified Schütze "V". Before you ask: Josef Pries was killed in action east of Bastogne on December 4, 1945, and Willi Gilbert died in the 1970's. So, no, it wasn't them who indentified Schütze "V" - nor did any other veteran of their unit. I know because I'm in regular contact with the two veterans who visited the museum and with most other surving members of this unit.
BTW: at the time of the Ardennes offensive Stiewe was the Adjutant of Sturmbannführer Gustav Knittel. But unfortunately Untersturmführer Siegfried Stiewe was killed in action on March 27, 1945, near Komarom, together with Unterscharführer Hermann Warnke as they tried to pull Sturmmann Fischer out of enemy fire. Fischer could not run away due to a sprained ankle and when the unit regrouped, Warnke and Stiewe were missing. After the war Stiewes father, Oberstleutnant Josef Stiewe, conducted a search but his son remains MIA to date. I thus seriously doubt that it was Stiewe who indentified Schütze "V" to the museum.
Due to a stupid mix-up Walter has been linked to Schütze "V" some years ago and it cost me and several others alot of time to put the error straight. It's not him. He wasn't pictured at Poteau. He was in another LAH Kampfgruppe and pictured at another location in December 1944. So if the museum found Schütze "V", how did they find him? And how big is the chance that they actually traced another veteran from this unit living in the States, who was also pictured in the Ardennes but on a different location and who also wants to remain anonymous? My guess is that they traced Walter the same way I did but somehow didn't notice that they linked him with the wrong photo.
BTW: at the time of the Ardennes offensive Stiewe was the Adjutant of Sturmbannführer Gustav Knittel. But unfortunately Untersturmführer Siegfried Stiewe was killed in action on March 27, 1945, near Komarom, together with Unterscharführer Hermann Warnke as they tried to pull Sturmmann Fischer out of enemy fire. Fischer could not run away due to a sprained ankle and when the unit regrouped, Warnke and Stiewe were missing. After the war Stiewes father, Oberstleutnant Josef Stiewe, conducted a search but his son remains MIA to date. I thus seriously doubt that it was Stiewe who indentified Schütze "V" to the museum.
Due to a stupid mix-up Walter has been linked to Schütze "V" some years ago and it cost me and several others alot of time to put the error straight. It's not him. He wasn't pictured at Poteau. He was in another LAH Kampfgruppe and pictured at another location in December 1944. So if the museum found Schütze "V", how did they find him? And how big is the chance that they actually traced another veteran from this unit living in the States, who was also pictured in the Ardennes but on a different location and who also wants to remain anonymous? My guess is that they traced Walter the same way I did but somehow didn't notice that they linked him with the wrong photo.
Thanks "timowr" 
Now you have let the cat out of the bag.
Rob's memory may not be failing him but mine might be. I have just confirmed with my brother, who was there with me at the time, that it was Rob's wife Jacqueline who in fact was the one who told us that yes they had identified and contacted the man in question after I asked if that man in the photo had ever been identified. We were gathered around the glass display that featured a rusty pistol they had dug up from around the area similar to (the actual same one?) the one he is holding in the photo (which was displayed next to the relic) when I asked the question and pressed for more information. As I have said, I was of course surprised that they (more correctly she) told us that they had indentified/contacted the man, but was even more surprised when she continued to tell us that he wished to remain anonymous. Certainly even just telling us that he had been identified may be considered as a breach of this man's wishes to remain anonymous. I think I may have caught her off guard by asking that question (not sure too many people would have ever asked before or even care, but I did and I do) and she may have let slip with something she normally would not discuss.
If my guess is correct that Jacqueline did have a slip of the tongue, then I am sure that Rob would be doing no justice to their promise to maintain this mans anonymity by acknowledging any story (now being openly discussed on a prominent world wide historic forum) that they at the museum do know this mans identity.
If our only hope of ever finding the truth behind this man lay with that museum and what I was told, I certainly do not think that contacting them simply to confirm or deny what I was told does anything for this hope, especially if you told them that it is now being openly discussed on this forum. In fact, like a clam, it may shut any story even tighter.
I can't tell people what they should or shouldn't do. I guess I expected people would have realised themselves that approaching Rob and Jacqueline directly with what I have told you would not be a good thing, UNLESS you had both the preparation, will, conviction and most importantly means, backing and resources ($) to follow through and contact this man what ever the cost.
Please check your PM "timowr".
Bullman
Now you have let the cat out of the bag.
Rob's memory may not be failing him but mine might be. I have just confirmed with my brother, who was there with me at the time, that it was Rob's wife Jacqueline who in fact was the one who told us that yes they had identified and contacted the man in question after I asked if that man in the photo had ever been identified. We were gathered around the glass display that featured a rusty pistol they had dug up from around the area similar to (the actual same one?) the one he is holding in the photo (which was displayed next to the relic) when I asked the question and pressed for more information. As I have said, I was of course surprised that they (more correctly she) told us that they had indentified/contacted the man, but was even more surprised when she continued to tell us that he wished to remain anonymous. Certainly even just telling us that he had been identified may be considered as a breach of this man's wishes to remain anonymous. I think I may have caught her off guard by asking that question (not sure too many people would have ever asked before or even care, but I did and I do) and she may have let slip with something she normally would not discuss.
If my guess is correct that Jacqueline did have a slip of the tongue, then I am sure that Rob would be doing no justice to their promise to maintain this mans anonymity by acknowledging any story (now being openly discussed on a prominent world wide historic forum) that they at the museum do know this mans identity.
If our only hope of ever finding the truth behind this man lay with that museum and what I was told, I certainly do not think that contacting them simply to confirm or deny what I was told does anything for this hope, especially if you told them that it is now being openly discussed on this forum. In fact, like a clam, it may shut any story even tighter.
I can't tell people what they should or shouldn't do. I guess I expected people would have realised themselves that approaching Rob and Jacqueline directly with what I have told you would not be a good thing, UNLESS you had both the preparation, will, conviction and most importantly means, backing and resources ($) to follow through and contact this man what ever the cost.
Please check your PM "timowr".
Bullman
Sorry to disappoint you "bullman". Conspiracy theories are often popular but in this case you're making alot out of nothing. Rob and his wife do not know his identity and that's that. On the contrary. They'd love to hear whatever progress I've made in finding more details about the men in the Poteau photos. As for Schütze "V", they mixed up the stories I described. A veteran was pictured in the Ardennes but he was from a different LAH Kampfgruppe and he was pictured in a different location. Because of a stupid mix-up in the AHF forum some years ago his name was linked to the Poteau photo and this story quickly spread among the visitors of several forums.
I must be missing the point here? The Veteran
whom has or not been found would like to
keep his identity private. Respect for the Veteran
should be the first and most important issue here.
One should remember that perhaps when he immigrated
the question of his past was not asked and since then
things have changed. Veterans of the SS can be
sought after. Is it any wonder that many here like
to keep their identity not known? They have families
with children and grandchildren. They don't need any
problems. Of course if they are comfortable with sharing
then all of us would only be happy to hear their stories.
Timo well knows many Veterans willing to share and how they
feel about "whatever the cost" approach. If he wanted to share
then Timo or someone like him researching would have probably
done so if he was willing. Then perhaps he is no longer living.
whom has or not been found would like to
keep his identity private. Respect for the Veteran
should be the first and most important issue here.
One should remember that perhaps when he immigrated
the question of his past was not asked and since then
things have changed. Veterans of the SS can be
sought after. Is it any wonder that many here like
to keep their identity not known? They have families
with children and grandchildren. They don't need any
problems. Of course if they are comfortable with sharing
then all of us would only be happy to hear their stories.
Justice? please explain?I am sure that Rob would be doing no justice to their promise to maintain this mans anonymity by acknowledging any story (now being openly discussed on a prominent world wide historic forum) that they at the museum do know this mans identity.
contact this man what ever the cost? YOu must be kidding?can't tell people what they should or shouldn't do. I guess I expected people would have realised themselves that approaching Rob and Jacqueline directly with what I have told you would not be a good thing, UNLESS you had both the preparation, will, conviction and most importantly means, backing and resources ($) to follow through and contact this man what ever the cost.
Timo well knows many Veterans willing to share and how they
feel about "whatever the cost" approach. If he wanted to share
then Timo or someone like him researching would have probably
done so if he was willing. Then perhaps he is no longer living.
Annelie
________________________
________________________
All I know is what I was personally told by the museum in late 2005. That the man in the photo has been identified, lives in the USA, has been contacted but wishes to stay anonymous. There is no conspiracy, this is what I was told by the museum and that is it.
Discreditting me or trying to deny I was ever told that does nothing for this mystery.
If the museum told me in error (mistakenly confusing him with another veteran from another photo), then being told "They have no clue what "bullman" is talking about" also does nothing for this mystery but raise more questions. Perhaps only a direct explanation from the museum will ever really do anything for this discussion.
Annelie, we may see things differently, but there is no right or wrong here, just different ways of seeing things. I strongly believe that there is very little to gain from monopolising historical knowledge or keeping history from being accurately recorded.
I do respect veterans, but more so those who realise just how fortunate they are to have survived the war and be in a unique position to share their stories with future generations so that whatever contribution they may be able to make to the history books and to the greater knowledge of generations to come is not lost forever once they pass. In the case of this man, if he is still alive and currently willing to remain anonymous, I am sure there would be far worse things that could happen to him (could've happened to him) than to share his story with the rest of the world 67 years after the event. It is not as if he would have anything really worth hiding or to hide from anymore. In this post-Sept 11 world, people are worry about other more pressing things, like do you have links to terrorist activities and the like. On the contrary, being told a story 67 years old is an amazing thing to hear no matter what it is about.
I believe that anyone who is unable to face up to the reality that was their life and who keep it to themselves to their grave is much poorer than one who, after years of personal anguish, is finally able to overcome any guilt/ill feelings etc and share with whoever will listen or wants to know their story. Thats my opinion. I therefore see nothing wrong with ever hypothetically (re?)approaching this man to convince him to reconsider any earlier reservations about telling his story. I also see nothing wrong with offering whatever incentives/encouragement that might sway him to tell his story. It after all it is a form of journalism and it happens all the time. What makes this any different? If someone has the time and resources and will to do it, then so be it. The world will be a better place if they succeed.
Bullman
Discreditting me or trying to deny I was ever told that does nothing for this mystery.
If the museum told me in error (mistakenly confusing him with another veteran from another photo), then being told "They have no clue what "bullman" is talking about" also does nothing for this mystery but raise more questions. Perhaps only a direct explanation from the museum will ever really do anything for this discussion.
Annelie, we may see things differently, but there is no right or wrong here, just different ways of seeing things. I strongly believe that there is very little to gain from monopolising historical knowledge or keeping history from being accurately recorded.
I do respect veterans, but more so those who realise just how fortunate they are to have survived the war and be in a unique position to share their stories with future generations so that whatever contribution they may be able to make to the history books and to the greater knowledge of generations to come is not lost forever once they pass. In the case of this man, if he is still alive and currently willing to remain anonymous, I am sure there would be far worse things that could happen to him (could've happened to him) than to share his story with the rest of the world 67 years after the event. It is not as if he would have anything really worth hiding or to hide from anymore. In this post-Sept 11 world, people are worry about other more pressing things, like do you have links to terrorist activities and the like. On the contrary, being told a story 67 years old is an amazing thing to hear no matter what it is about.
I believe that anyone who is unable to face up to the reality that was their life and who keep it to themselves to their grave is much poorer than one who, after years of personal anguish, is finally able to overcome any guilt/ill feelings etc and share with whoever will listen or wants to know their story. Thats my opinion. I therefore see nothing wrong with ever hypothetically (re?)approaching this man to convince him to reconsider any earlier reservations about telling his story. I also see nothing wrong with offering whatever incentives/encouragement that might sway him to tell his story. It after all it is a form of journalism and it happens all the time. What makes this any different? If someone has the time and resources and will to do it, then so be it. The world will be a better place if they succeed.
Bullman
Re: Famous photograph, what is his story?
His name is not Walter Armbrusch.
-
Brendan Hunt
- Supporter
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:46 pm
- Location: Vermont, USA
Re: Famous photograph, what is his story?
As far as I know he was at SS Treffens in the 80's,
I know someone with his autograph,
I will try to find his name out.
Many greetings.
Jb
I know someone with his autograph,
I will try to find his name out.
Many greetings.
Jb