"Dead" bodies as props?

My grandfather was part of the glider infantry. Wounded in the Battle of the Bulge (thunder from heaven). Before he died a decade or so ago, he told me a few things about those gliders. He said a lot of men would die on them whern the gliders would stop, but the jeep that they were carrying would continue on through the front….

As long as it is historically accurate, I have no problem with it.

i’ve seen plenty of blitz and WWI trench warfare exhibitions which featured dummies as dead bodies. I’d imagine they are cheaper than real ones. As a kid i went on a school trip to a small museum (The Winston Churchill Museum?) and they had a blitz exhibition which featured dead dummies, and it brought home the death and destruction. Bombed out buildings are all well and good, but sometimes it is easy for the dead to slip from the forefront of the mind.

I think, and its just my 2ps worth that sometimes when people question the taste of these things, it is simply that to be reminded makes them uncomfortable, and it reminds them of a simple, unavoidable fact that people know but would rather they kept out of the forefront of their consciousness, saying something is in bad taste simply means it makes them feel uncomfortable. But imho being made to feel uncomfortable is sometimes necessary.

Jay

Once they had landed they fought (and died) as infantrymen.
Their sacrifice should be marked.
Whether a shop dummy in a re-enactors ‘scene’ is the way to do it is still up for debate.

Moggy

Agreee, they should be remembered…but a dummy isn’t it.
I repeat my earlier belief…if it were a “dead” Spit pilot, or civilian casualty of the Blitz (there aren’t any at the BoB exhibit at Hendon) there wouldn’t be any discussion.

One of the things that struck home to me enormously at Arnhem for the 60th celebrations was the enormous number of graves containing members of the Glider pilot Regiment.

Once they had landed they fought (and died) as infantrymen.

Their sacrifice should be marked.

Whether a shop dummy in a re-enactors ‘scene’ is the way to do it is still up for debate.

Moggy

hI wouldn’t go so far as to agree with J Boyle but I admit to a little uneasiness about the idea.
I think I’m with Jonny956 who I believe currently serves HM Queen.

The Waco and mannequin was part of a diorama which depicted the grim reality of what happened to many glider crews. It wasn’t unnecessarily graphic – just thought provoking. I didn’t hear any complaints over the weekend and I am sure that had there been it would have been taken seriously. Simply put you can have an air display
with a ‘ME108’ masquerading as a ‘109’ always gets ‘shot down’ by a Mustang/Spitfire and nobody complains about the image that is portrayed.
The implication is one of death to the pilot and in some ways that is more graphic than an unrecognisable smoking hole in the ground.
FlyPast does have a policy of not publishing pictures of contemporary crashes
involving loss of life – however in the case of the Waco representation it wasn’t a loss of life or indeed the loss of an aircraft. Harsh reality to some and possibly unpalatable to others but it happened and if the Waco brings the danger of being a glider pilot
in wartime to the attention of more that can only help remember them more.

:D:D:D:D:D:D
u know, when at first I read the title of the topic I thought “dead bodies as props? I wonder how u would attach them to the propeller hub!” aaah, my english comprehension is so naive sometimes :rolleyes:

Now that might be bad taste

Jay

:D:D:D:D:D:D
u know, when at first I read the title of the topic I thought “dead bodies as props? I wonder how u would attach them to the propeller hub!” aaah, my english comprehension is so naive sometimes :rolleyes:

or indeed, goats, oops wrong thread…

oh come on!! This ain’t no christian sunday parade, it’s a battlefield re-enactment! what do u expect to find there? ponies and lambs? :rolleyes:

Alex

Certainly one to ponder…

I actually appreciate the participation of re-enactors at events. It is interesting to see, often educational and lends colour to photographs. Having said that, I still maintain that there are many who participate in this activity who like the kudos that they get by wearing a uniform and being associated with people who performed extraordinary deeds in extraordinary times. Ponder the fact that you don’t see too many chaps dressed as cooks/clerks/batting staff/members of the grave registration teams etc. It just aint sexy. In many years of attending this type of event, I have also failed to find many individuals who have actually served and/or seen action. I wonder why?
Shades of grown ups playing soldiers……….yes……quite a lot of the time and IMHO it is the people who ‘fall over’ in mock battles, dress their kids in Hitler Youth uniforms and put ‘dead’ manequins in cockpits that reinforce this view.

But hey………….its a free world……….what the heck!!lol

Rgds

Jon

Dead bodies? As props? Could give new meaning to the phrase “spinning in your grave” – Nermal

Reality Hurts

If it wasn’t for these “shocking – distasteful” images, we wouldn’t be here talking about it.

if by “questionable taste” you mean challenging and discomforting then spot on.

I saw the photo but didnt notice the dead guy, its not the BBMF lanc its a mock up built for the re-enactment. I am sure a glider with a dead pilot in was a reasonably common site in france etc in 1944. Shocking? yes, distasteful, i dunno.

Jay

Shoching, yes. Distasteful, yes, death is always that. But, in bad taste? I’d say not, just a stark reminder of the sacrifices too many made for our freedom and of the fact that there is no glory in war, only death and misery for some and harrowing experiences (which change lives forever) for the remainder.

Well put, James.

I agree 100% wholeheartedly.

TNZ

Hi John.

First off good question. A lot of it is about where you draw the line, and for many of us it’ll be in different places. I don’t think it’s a question of ‘taste’; war is appalling and what some people find acceptable about it, others will find rebarbative. Some of my wife’s friends find my interest in ex-military hardware dubious – after all we know well enough what they do – we don’t need to go on about it. I can see their point of view too. A Spitfire is just a different degree of killing to a dead dummy.

Lots of official British W.W.I photos from the trenches were banned, as ‘too disturbing’ – perhaps if we’d been disturbed enough we wouldn’t have had W.W.II?

A lot of us here (and in the warbird field) make special pleas as being interested in commemoration and rememberance; with varying degrees of honesty at times. However, if though some magic wand, the commemorative and memorial aspects were removed, most of us would still be here – wanting to play with the big boy’s toys. My point is that there’s often a double standard in this area. It’s OK as long as you don’t do X or Y. It’s worth checking one’s assumptions as you have done.

However realistic ‘Saving Private Ryan’ or the IWM Lambeth’s Trench experience is, you KNOW thaat while watching it, you aren’t going to get your head blown off, or, perhaps worse, be maimed in a permanant and non photogenic way. It’s easy to forget that war can be a lot worse than any of us can imagine. Anyone whose had a veteran in tears (as I have) reliving some aspect of their experience can’t take the matter lightly. To NOT represent the dead or missing is an oversight. Do we honour them by omitting them?

if by “questionable taste” you mean challenging and discomforting then spot on.

I saw the photo but didnt notice the dead guy, its not the BBMF lanc its a mock up built for the re-enactment. I am sure a glider with a dead pilot in was a reasonably common site in france etc in 1944. Shocking? yes, distasteful, i dunno.

Jay

[QUOTE=Manonthefence]Its War!! People Die!!QUOTE]

People die in war? Why I’ve never heard that…Let me write that down :rolleyes:

If we want to educate the general public, maybe we ought to poke some holes in the BoBMF Lanc and spread some ketchup on the floor for added “atmosphere”. Or show some photos of incinerated Germans who were unlucky enough to be caught on the receiving end of the bomber offensive.

I appreciate TexanTomcat’s review of the re-enactor group and their efforts at education…but from the photo in FlyPast it looks more like a group of grown men playing “army”. Most of us outgrew that in primary school.
I still think the mannequin is in very questionable taste.

I was at Spanhoe and i think it helps to remind the punters that the re-enactment isnt just boys own, grown ups playing war stuff – the re-enactment was superb in my opinion, excellent intro given by one of the organisers explaining the historical context prior to ‘battle’ commencing – the work they did on the trench system and in bringing the Hetzer was superb – the impression i got, given the past films and tv shows they have been involved with was that these guys were the creme de la creme of re-enactors –

I posted quite a well subscribed thread on whether re-enactors were a good thing a while back – these guys showed how it can be done properly – i guess its easy to forget that the aircraft we love were war machines and glamourise that such and such an aircraft had combat history and had so many ‘kills’ but kills were what they are – i think we’re all sensitive enough and well read in the subject to appreciate that without further comment – Joe Public not being so immersed either in military history as perhaps we are may be more succeptable to missing that point so I think Thunder from Heaven were quite right to use the ‘dead’ mannequins…

Just my penn’orth – good thread by the way!

TT

Its War!! People Die!!

The sooner more people realise that real warfare isnt like the fluffy warfare as portrayed by the Hollywood and British films of the 1950’s etc the better. The opening half hour of Saving Private Ryan should be required viewing imho.

If you ask me the mannequin wasnt realistic enough.