Defining what constitutes a "Third Reich Training Rifle"

I was again perusing Jim's opening treatise in this stickied thread from ten years ago...

<Evidence that the War Office was involved in the proliferation of the Mauser Deutches Sportmodell is noted in the order/offer records recently brought to light in Jon Speed’s “Mauser Archive” Wooden and aluminum models were procured by the German Military in November 1933. In is interesting in this reference that the entire records for 1934 were omitted and likely were destroyed as they would have contained significant evidence that Germany was in fact rearming in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and no doubt tooling, blueprints and drawings for the DSM 34 would have been noted going to the 16 firms that ultimately produced the guns at the direction of the new NAZI government....

To sort that out, one must consider the above and look to period literature. The manufacturers catalogs and prospectus aid to a great extent. Here too, though, the issue remains cloudy as even the “standardized” Deutches Sportmodell and Klein Kaliber Wehrsport Gewehr were proofed commercially and sold by retail firms to suppress suspicion and camouflage the Third Reich’s very active re-armament and marksmanship programs subsequent to 1933.>

...and was wondering: If the Versailles Treaty specifically omitted prohibitions on the manufacture of caliber .22 rimfire rifles (in other words "Make all you want, we don't care!"), wouldn't a similar attitude regarding the styling of those rifles and the manner in which they were implemented logically follow? That is to say, if the Allied inspectors were satisfied that the Treaty was being adhered to, why would the Allies care if the style of sport shooting in Germany began to resemble a military training exercise or a church picnic?

Very obviously DSMs and KKWs were made to look like a commercial product, and even offered for export. What fascinates me, however, is why there would be sufficient paranoia to omit/destroy those 1934 records if rimfire rifles were a non-prohibited item. Surely such action must've been taken for reasons other than concealing the manufacture of .22 trainers.

Admittedly, I'm not familiar with the Versailles' Treaty finer points. Would the violation have been the involvement of the War Office in the development of these military-styled models? My understanding was that Germany could've had as many men under arms as she wanted, so long as their rifles were chambered for .22LR.

Richie

Well I am getting old. And much of what I learned and found with research is not to the forefront of what mind I have left. I am sure I will omit some key points or contradictory evidence. But I will attempt to answer that with what I recall.

I will give you the "opinions" I formed from over 40 years of research here and abroad. My focus was the DSM as it was the first standardized and sanctioned "official" if you will trainer by the NAZI government all occurring after Hitler came to power.

1. With regard to "masking" production. It was cleverly overt. Sold commercially, money and incentives flowed via the various party organizations left to acquire them on their own. Nothing was in violation of the terms of the Treaty. And this production did not go to "men under arms" as defined in same.

2. While it is evidenced by the property marks on the guns that virtually all party organizations acquired them and used them, there is significant evidence that the primary intended end users were the Hitler Youth. The contracts give the priority for distribution and in both the initial contract and a 36 amendment the Hitler Youth is listed first. That occurred again in a 1938 rebate program.

3. A concurrent agenda in giving trainer production early priority was the establishment of cooperative production in Suhl and Zella Mehlis. This accommodated government money and incentives for those many firms to equip, expand, and form relationships that later facilitated war weapons production. Again all out in the open.

4. Shirach tended to minimize para military training of the HJ or focus away from it. There are significant points in his tenure where he was quoted taking this stance. This was obviously in conflict with the party goal of preparing German youth for war. I believe the pressure to do so, resulted in his being more or less "exiled" as Gauleiter of Vienna in 1938. In that year as I recall, the foundation of the Hitler Youth Marksmanship training schools and photographic evidence indicates increased involvement by the Wehrmacht and SS in HJ marksmanship training. Axmann went along with the plan. Also you can find the testimony of Shirach at the Nuremberg trials that eludes to this. In his mind he was emulating what he witnessed first hand on visits to the United States and our use of the Springfield 1922 in DCM marksmanship programs. A valid argument he made was that the U.S. was the first to develop a standardized 22 trainer to prepare American Youth for the eventuality of war.

These are all points I had gathered much evidence on and would have liked to include in my own book on the DSM.

When we merged efforts, there was not enough room, or time to go into all that and ever cross the finish line on a Third Reich Trainer book that attempted to cover all the variations and models.

Now as I have stated these are my "opinions". There are those here who will dispute it and present good arguments to the contrary and I welcome that.

For my part, my overall opinion I take from all that effort is:

The development and employment of .22 training rifles as and after Hitler came to power was an ingenious means not just to prepare youth and society for the eventuality of war, but to prepare a suffering industry to expeditiously ramp up weapons production to that same end. I have always believed and still do that the primary intended end users were the Hitler Youth. Not so different than the Boy Scouts and DCM programs of the United States between the wars.

Back to your last question: While the trainers were used to a small degree by the Military (primarily for recreational use) they were for the most part used in "civilian" but party sanctioned marksmanship training - primarily the HJ, SA, etc. Hence the priority for the HJ - the well spring from which the product of that training went on to military service.

I don't know if I answered your question(s) but there is what I "think" for what it is worth.

Brain fart failed to comment on:

As for those missing records from Mauser Oberndorf in 1934 (at the time of the contract for the DSM). Purely speculation on my part that those records may have been destroyed or omitted when I wrote that. But it is intriguing as there likely would have been more clues as to the extent of the Party's involvement in development. Of course Mauser was motivated to placate the Party, not that trainer production would ever be lucrative. It was small potatoes. But what the party wanted - the party got as that would be the source of any future large contracts. So my having stated that all that was "directed by the NAZI government" is not entirely accurate. More correctly, I should have said it was "encouraged and requested". Politics and Economics. You have to put your mind in the place of the people, economics, and politics of the period. Not so easily done in 2021 unless you have studied a lot of history outside the guns themselves.

First, the DSM was not a military weapon. It was a commercial product. It was NOT ordered by the military, but was requested by the SA (political party, albeit largely "militarized") who had volunteered to lead a program designed to make every single citizen of the country proficient in marksmanship. ALL of them. By request, it was to resemble the standard military weapon. It was not restricted by treaty regulations. It allowed the government and the military to funnel funds to the arms makers which of course allowed them to tool up for military production. The primary customer for these training rifles was the SA, NOT the military. If you wrap your mind around the fact that the SA and the Reichswehr Ministerium are two completely different and separate entities, perhaps you will see how this worked. Refer to pages 222-223 in the trainer book.
Steve

Brother adds further clarification here I think.

Essentially we are congruent in our opinions.

My perception remains, that athough the SA was tasked with all Marksmanship within the Reich, and was the customer, and was involved with development feedback, the primary intended end users were the HJ. Photographic evidence bears this out. Just as the primary intended end users of the Springfield 1922 variants were ROTC Programs, NRA marksmanship Programs (for youth and adults) up until the War began for the U.S. in Dec 1941.

Agenda in both countries, prepare the populace for war. Priority: prepare the youth who will do the fighting.

As for the "Party", prior to Hitler coming to power (before 1933) the SA, WAS the Party. (Period) They were NAZI's.

Subsequently, (1934) all facets of government to include the Reichswher Ministry were run by NAZI's under Hitler, thus again we are talking about the "Party" to my way of thinking.

Apples and Oranges

Serial production of the DSM began concurrently.

I neglected to mention that the wooden and aluminum models are an honest mistake. If you look at the original ledger page below, you will notice that this is for the "D.E.M.G" which is not a training rifle but the "Deutsches Einheits Maschinen Gewehr" (German Universal/Standard Machine Gun} which would later be known as the MG 34. There was no need to make wooden or aluminum models of the training rifle, for one thing. More importantly, the RWM was not interested in buying trainers, as they had the full-size rifles which they DID want more of. These ledger entries have nothing to do with the DSM at all.
Steve