Important site update

[mauro]

Hello Friends,
Another important update of my web site.
More topic, information and pictures sorted in different topics.
Please have a look.
Any comments/remarks are welcomed.
Have fun,
Mauro


www.lugerlp08.com

[Don M]

Hello Mauro,

This is the first time I have visited your website and so cannot comment on changes; however, I am very impressed by what I have seen. Congratulations and thanks for making this available.

As you may know, I have been researching German police markings on Lugers and other pistols and am in the very early stages of writing a book on these markings. In the course of my research, I have found documentary evidence that the Prussian Landj�¤gerei used LP08s until 1929, presumably with the approval of the IMKK. This seems contrary to IMKK's attitude toward other police units and the military. The documentary evidence consists of an order dated 29 May 1929 from the Prussian Ministry of the Interior authorizing the arming of all uniformed Landj�¤gerei personnel with new P08s. Paragraph 2 of that order states: "S�¤mtliche in H�¤nden der Landj�¤gereibeamten befindlichen Pistolen 08 mit langem Lauf Zubeh�¶r sind nach Eingang der Pistolen 08 an die Polizeischule f�¼r Technik und Verkehr in Berlin SW.29, Bolassenerstrasse, zur Umargeitung mit Inhaltsverzeichnes abzugeben." This has been translated as: "After receipt of Pistols 08, all long-barreled Pistols 08, including accessories, currently held by Landj�¤gerei personnel are to be handed in to the Police School for Technology and Transport (the Berlin police armory), ...... for the purpose of alteration."

The IMKK was less restrictive on the Landj�¤gerei than on the Schutzpolizei. For example, the Landj�¤gerei and the Gendarmerie of other states were permitted to have one rifle or carbine for each man while the Schupo was allowed one for every three men. Is it possible that LP08s were permitted to the Landj�¤gerei as carbines? I would appreciate any comments you or other forum members may have on this apparent inconsistency.

[Vlim]

Hi Don,

Many inconsistencies were the result of the German military and police organizations' less than willing cooperation with the IMKK. They cheated, stashed weapons in secret storage locations and even 'sold' guns to private companies that were actually controlled by the state.

The arms companies did the same thing:
Krupp and DWM even transferred several of their production machinery to the Netherlands for safe keeping. Other machines were hidden at scrap yards, where the owners were paid to keep the machines safe from destruction until they could be returned to the factories.

You may find the article on the following site helpfull:

http://www.historisches-lexikon-baye.../artikel_44717

[mauro]

Hello Don,
You are right; there are several inconsistencies in the application of the Treaty of Versailles. I have underlined this point at page 74 of my book.
In fact, according to the rules introduced by the Reichswehr in the â??Inspektion der Infanterie, Nr 657f7.20.j 2.(W 2) IV, 959. Stempelung der Handwaffen und Maschinengewehre der Reichswehr vor der allgemeine Entwaffnung der Bev�¶lkerungâ?� on date 1 August 1920, the following weapons have to be marked with the â??1920â?� mark:
Gewehr 1898;
Carbine K98;
TG18;
MP18;
P08;
LP08 (Note that also the stock should be marked with 1920).


Now, the TG18, MP18 and LP08 were forbidden in accordance to the Treaty of Versailles.

Therefore it is absolutely true that, at least at documentation level, these â??forbiddenâ?� guns (LP08 too) were officially managed in the formal documents.

I hope this helps your research.

Have fun,
Mauro

[Don M]

Gerben and Mauro,

Thank you very much for your input. I suspect that the IMKK may have turned a "blind eye" to the possession of LP08s by the Landj�¤gerei, particularly if they were counted as both pistols and carbines. There is other documentation indicating the Landj�¤gerei was rearmed with Kar 98a's in 1928 and this may have allowed them to exchange P08s for LP08s in 1929.

[thegundude]

Mauro, excellent and useful updates. Thanks a million for keeping up on things so well...

I hope your baby boy is doing well and that your family had a great holiday season...

[Dwight Gruber]

Mauro,

I suggest that there is no conflict between the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles and the 1920 Property Mark requirement for stamping weapons which were to become forbidden.

The Versailles Treaty, which was not completed and signed until June 1919, was a general document which identified in broad terms the principles under which Germany was to be disarmed, and the limits on the numbers of its armed forces and the weapons which they were permitted. It also specified the manner in which surplus arms were to be surrendered for destruction. These terms are laid out in Treaty Chapter I Article 162 and Chapter II Articles 164-170.

The treaty does not, however, include the detailed regulations, such as limitations on barrel length, caliber, etc. which have come to be associated with it. These regulations were actually promulgated by the Interallied Military Control Commission (IMKK), the regulatory and enforcement agency established under the treaty.

Since neither the IMKK itself nor its charter existed before June 1919, its detailed work must have occurred after that date. We know that Germany willfully circumvented the spirit and letter of the Treaty whenever possible. It is established by example, for instance, that DWM did not finally cease production of pistols intended for military and police use until 1921, and therefore did not â??divestâ?� itself of the means of such production until after that date.

I speculate here, then, that there was a period of time during which the IMKK developed its regulations, to supplement and amplify the general Treaty provisions, and in response to circumstances within Germany as they evolved regarding German non-compliance. It is possible that, when the 1920 property mark instructions were established in August, 1920, the regulations which resulted in the banning of the TG18, MP18 and LP08 had not yet been completed.

This speculation can be tested by detailed examination of the records of the IMKK, to determine the dates of establishment of its regulations and its ad hoc activities in their enforcement. I imagine the documents are voluminous.

I have not seen citations of dates of specific regulations, but I may have not looked in the right place, or have not been paying attention. I expect the documents are available somewhere. This is a subject of some interest to me, if anyone reading this knows offhand of a convenient source for these documents Iâ??d appreciate hearing about it.

--Dwight

[mauro]

Hello Dwight,
Thank you for your correct remark. I am sorry, it is my fault but I am used to indicate with the Treaty of Versailles the entire set of restriction (with the related procedures) imposed to the German by the Allied.

Of course, on 28th June 1919, neither the Germans Johannes Bell and Herman Muller nor Wilson, Clemenceau and all the others allied representatives have an idea about what a LP08 is.

The inconsistency I mentioned in the previous point consists in the fact that when the Allied declared outlaw the anti-tank rifle, the sub-machine gun and the LP08, the aforementioned Reichswehr document, as far as I know, has not been updated.
Therefore, formally, there are German documents that still consider LP08, TG18 and MP18 as allowed gun in disagreement with the Interallied indication.

Maybe, thank you to this ambiguity, we still have some beautiful double date LP08.

Cheers,
Mauro