Bismarck

To echo serat12's apolitical logic, when Bismarck sortied the icon was overpainted so as not to invite a visit from coastal air patrol. Remarkably when Robert Ballard photo'd her decks the grey overcoat had decayed, leaving a ghost swastika looming again into view.

thank you for all comments and history you all have made.  boy i do learn a lot about the history of germany and the swastika, even tho im ww2 history bluff but still kept on learning and learning. 

to be honest i do have two of the southern rebel flag hanging up in my room but never show in public, since i live in north state (NY).   most of my friends has come and see it  doesnt really bother them.  they tend to ask me why i do have it i just told them is cuz i like the way it looks not what they mean.  as for swaskita, the only thing i would show is on model which i have now have no problem with it.  as for bismarck,  i just want to make the ship that looks on the day she was in atlantic ocean before she sunk.  if i happens to have other bismarck which i might will, i prolly will make it as she was during in the baltic sea before she took off to open water. 

Kronos-Doomsday,  i like the idea of cut up white disc to cover it up and remove it. 

A swastika was used on German ships operating on the Baltic as a means of recognition. Once operations took a ship out of the baltic, the swastika was painted over. If you bring it to a show, you would want to display it with a swastika as it would be historically correct. In a contest it would be demerited. Other places, you could make white disc to cover it with, and simply place it over the swastika, and that way you can ask the veiwer if it offends or not and remove it for "adult" veiwing. Please forgive the spelling. It is too bad that a simple good luck charm has been endowed with such power that the Germans have made it illegal! I know that this is a sticky situation, it was not the swastika that commited such atrocities. Suppose Adolph and the boys deceided that a four leaf clover rampant on a feild of crimson would make a really nifty flag?  

bryan01,

I in no way intended to classify Raeder and Doenitz as saviors!  They willingly served an evil government and prospered in that government.  They were honorable men who served that evil honorably.

However, there are ways in which naval warfare can be conducted inhumanely, such as the wilful murder or abandonment of shipwreck survivors, starvation and physical abuse of prisoners, etc.  At first, the Germans generally did what they could to help survivors of ships their U-Boats had torpedoed; they stopped such efforts when the Allies would continue attacking them. My understanding is that both Raeder and Doenitz issued orders to conduct war humanely.

If my memory serves correctly, in one famous incident involving the accidental torpedoing of a Spanish passenger ship, two U-Boats surfaced, flew the Red Cross flag, and radioed all Allied ships in the vicinity to assist in rescue operations; the Allies attacked both U-Boats instead, leaving many possible survivors to drown.

Doenitz was convicted by virtue of his building the U-Boat fleet and waging unrestricted submarine warfare. American Admiral Nimitz wanted to testify in his defense at Nuremburg that the Americans used the same tactics but Nimitz was denied permission.

Bill Morrison

Good post Bill, your meaning is clear and not offending at all. A few points however:

Although Erich Raeder wasn't very fond of the Nazi party he was however a strong supporter of the build up of the German navy (which was a breach of the Versailles Treaty). He was found guilty of waging a war of aggression.

Karl Doenitz on the other hand was very supportive of Hitler, anti-Semitism and Nazi ideology.

Quote by Doenitz:

"What would have become of our country today if the Fuehrer had not united us under National Socialism? Split by parties, beset with the spreading poison of Jewry and vulnerable to it, because we lacked the defense of our present uncompromising ideology, we would long since have succumbed under the burden of this war, and delivered ourselves up to the enemy who would have mercilessly destroyed us."

He was also found guilty of waging a war of aggression and of crimes against laws of war.

It is true the Kriegsmarine is generally considered to have fought an honorable war. One can of course argue if it is even possible to commit crimes against humanity on a large scale at sea. Other than unrestricted U-boat warfare and shore bombardments the actions of a navy are mostly limited to fighting other warships. After all, in wartime the seas are generally devoid of innocent civilians.

It could however have turned out rather different if unarmed passenger liners or hospital ships would've been sunk on a large scale or if surface ships would've been used to shell populated seaside areas. This however didn't happen.

About your statement "...Raeder and Doenitz ...continuing to allow Jewish officers to serve unmolested."

Although seemingly correct I'm afraid it is a little bit more complicated. I assume you refer to "Jews" like Bernhard Rogge and Paul Asher!? According to the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 they were classified as Mishlinge (half-breeds) and not "real" Jews since only two or less of their grandparents were Jewish. Neither the people involved nor the state saw them as Jews as they didn't practice the Jewish religion nor did they have a Jewish lifestyle. Both of these men received a Deutschblütigkeitserklärung (German Blood Certificate) signed by Hitler personally.

It is therefore not fair to recognize Raeder and Doenitz as "saviors" like Oscar Shindler and Raoul Wallenberg.

 

Another thing that we should remember in this thread . . . the Kriegsmarine was acquited at Nuremburg as having fought an honorable war.  Only one officer was brought to trial for having committed war crimes (Helmuth von Ruckteschell of the AMC Widder). He died in prison during the trial. Admirals Raeder and Doenitz were charged and convicted of having conspired to wage war, not committing war crimes.  Indeed, both Raeder and Doenitz fought the politicization (sp?) of their service, even to the point of continuing to allow Jewish officers to serve unmolested.

In other words, the swastika emblem carried by German warships was not an ideological symbol but rather a national mark of identification.  It may be a fine point but I believe it is a profound one. The Kriegsmarine was not an instrument used to foster the spread of NAZIism, but rather was an instrument of national policy.

I sincerely hope that my meaning is clear. If my argument offends anyone, I apologize!

Bill Morrison

I too, understand where Bryan1 is coming from, having lived in Germany for eight years, including a couple years after the wall came down.... Nazism really IS just lurking beneath the surface for a LOT of Germans, and these ideas and these people pop up in the strangest places, people who, just to look at them, you would NEVER guess still harbored those kind of thoughts.  And that is why the Germans have a lot of laws dealing with the use of just about any sort of Nazi symbolism, as they are afraid that if they leave that door open, even just a crack, it won't be long before some jackboot kicks it open the rest of the way.... Luckily, I live in the US now, and such restrictions regarding Nazi symbols are not as necessary (though we DO have our OWN issues about the old Confederacy and IT'S symbols... I note that the Governor of Texas actually brought up the subject of possible secession again, although that expression has not been used in a modern context since 1865!).  I also note that, although it is illegal to use any sort of Nazi symbolism in Germany, the Germans themselves are REALLY into 'clubs' of one sort or another, one of which (strangely!) is a quite large number that like to do Civil War reenactments... US Civil War reenactments, and they have a hard time finding enough people to represent the 'Union' forces!

I'm afraid that I do understand bryan01's point.  We in the United States have recently undergone the controversy over the use of the Confederate States flag in several southern state flags.  For many Southerners (including myself), that flag stands for much more than racism and slavery; it stands for a particular interpretation of the Constitution of the United States in which the individual states possessed rights not owned by the Federal Government.  It stood for Southern culture that no longer exists.  For African-Americans, it stands for none of those things; it stands for slavery and American terrorism.  I do understand their not wanting any government within the United States to glorify such things.

But, a painting or diorama depicting any Civil War battle would look silly without the Confederate battle flag! Similarly, those German vehicles on which the swastika was depicted look silly without it. It simply looks empty and it looks like we are trying to bury our heads to the dirtier points of history.

If we bury that history, then those groups spoken of so eloquently by bryan01 will have room to flourish. I hope that never happens!

Bill Morrison

Hi Crackers, I'm afraid you fail to see my point (or, despite my long post, I failed to convey the message).

You probably think that everyone sees the swastika (and other Nazi symbolism) as an evil thing. You probably think that everyone associates it with war, extermination camps, blitzkrieg, terror bombing, occupation, persecution and anything else negative about it you can think of. And you're right, fortunately most people do.

So you therefore probably also think that everyone who sees a model of the Bismarck, complete with swastika's and flags will say: "Hey, that's a mighty fine looking model, beautiful ship, only too bad it fought on the wrong side. Well, at least we sunk it after they put up a good fight. But we won!"

Wrong, in Germany, Austria and other countries large groups of people still have quite  positive associations with swastika's and such. For them it stands for economic prosperity, feeling superior, culture, order, being part of something. When they see a model of the Bismarck they would probably (want to) say: "Hey, that's a mighty fine looking model, beautiful ship, only to bad we lost it, should've build more of those! Yep, those were the days, too bad about the Jews but hey, something had to be done about them, they would've brought the Reich down to its knees just like the first time. Yeah, we were a great nation but those @#$% Americans, Brits, French and Russians took that away from us.....again!" (I once met a German who actually told me this).

Quite a few political organizations are very well aware of the fact that those kind of sentiments still linger around in the minds of some people and they would sure like to use the old symbols to gather more support for their cause (whatever that may be).

The German government is obviously also very much aware of this and that's the reason why they put a strict ban on the use of these symbols by such organizations. Remember, in Germany and other European countries a party doesn't has to have an elected majority to end up in government (the NSDAP had only 43.9% in 1933).

If this ban at the same time has the consequence that you're not allowed to publicly show your historically correct Bismarck....well, too bad. It's only a small price to pay in order to prevent something much worse from happening.

I hope you understand now that the whole topic has nothing to do with the sensitivity of Europeans (or me personally as a Dutchman), that's a completely different subject. It also has nothing to do with what the Nazi's did to the peoples of other nations and trying to hide from it (they don't).

It has to do with what the Germans did to themselves!

   Dear Bryan01:   I can understand the sensitivities of Europeans to Nazi symbolism, as in your country, Holland, which suffered greatly from German occupation during World War II. But, the model of the Bismarck, with the painted swastika, is only a model that requires accurate representation. This model does not in any way indorse extreme nationalism, militarism, bruality and total control of all political, cultural and economic activity of a subjucated people by National Socialism. If the display of symbols were to be taken to a serious extreme, then the flags of all nations would be banned from models. There is not a nation on this green earth that has not one time in its history committed shameful acts against other human beings. This is a sad fact of this world. Model making is a pleasant form of escapism from the cares and worries of this planet. I would hope this activity is not burdened by negative symbolism.

           Montani semper liberi !  Happy modeling to all and every one of you.

                                           Crackers     

Ever since I stumbled upon this thread a few weeks ago I've been thinking about a proper contribution to this sensitive topic.

First my personal view about whether or not one should add the swastika to a model of the Bismarck:

For the model to be historically accurate I think the swastikas should be added.

Just be careful when showing it to other people, especially in Europe. Why? Because a lot of people just don't understand why you would even bother to put a lot of time and effort into building this model if you don't have some affiliation with Nazi Germany in the first place. I know, not very reasonable but that's just the way it is. If you however explain to them that your interest is purely technical/historical and that your model has nothing to do with glorifying Nazism, I'm sure most people will try to understand. Still, for most Europeans, especially those living in the countries occupied by Germany or its allies, it's difficult to make that distinction.

While reading the other responses in this thread and the other one titled "I need to apologize" I couldn't help but notice that most of them were from the United States and included statements like Political Correctness, History is History, Sensitivity of thin skinned people etc etc. Apparently the people who made these statements have a hard time understanding why the use of the swastika is prohibited in Germany and other parts of Europe. They probably see it as some kind of censoring or denial of history. That is not true.

Showing the swastika and other Nazi symbolism in film, photographs, books, memorabilia etc in its historical context isn't prohibited at all. On the contrary, the German people are very well aware of their history because of this and they should be admired for not trying to hide from it (unlike the Japanese).

However, it is the manufacturing of new products (including scale models) displaying these symbols which is prohibited (accept for educational purposes). Please remember, these laws are not new but were introduced right after the end of the war as part of the denazification process.

And there is a very good reason for this: contrary to what you might think Nazism or German nationalism is not merely history, it's living history.

After the German troops surrendered in May 1945 the Allies were faced with a huge problem: an enormous country, completely in ruins, economically wrecked, full of disillusioned soldiers and civilians whom had been indoctrinated for so many years. Once again the rise of the Great German Nation had been halted. Once again they were defeated. Once again there rightful place among nations was withheld from them. It's true, not all Germans were Nazi's, but still, many of those felt the same way nonetheless.

You would however be astonished if you knew how many fairly high ranking Nazi's quickly regained their former influential spots in German and Austrian society. This is probably due to the scale of the atrocities committed and the huge amount of people involved. The little fish mostly got away as all attention was directed to the big ones. Furthermore, both sides were tired of war and wanted to move on as quickly as possible.

"Murderers among us" by Simon Wiesenthal is a good read about this subject.

It's primarily this group of people for which the strict anti-Nazi laws were (and are) intended. To prevent them from using the familiar old symbols (which a lot of Germans, Nazi or not, still associated with the prosperous pre war era) to gain political support and thus endangering the future of the new democratic Germany the Allies had in mind.

It's this preoccupation with nationalism which is one of the reasons why the German people became Europe's "problem child" in the first place. Like many events in history its roots can be traced way back. In the case of Germany all the way back to Napoleon. Until its dissolvement in 1806 the German people were all part of the Holy Roman Empire. In 1815 the German Confederation was formed. Although language and culture were roughly similar the federation consisted of approximately forty separate states. Among these Prussia and Austria were the biggest, both trying to increase their influence. The Kingdom of Prussia was however the leading military and industrial power. An early attempt to unify all German States under leadership of Prussia in 1848 failed.

Otto von Bismarck (after whom the battleship was named) became prime-minister of Prussia in 1862. It was he who introduced nationalism as a means to achieve his goals. First Prussia, together with Austria, declared war on Denmark to liberate the German people in the Danish provinces of Schleswig and Holstein. Doing so was a great way to make the German people aware of their common identity and at the same time prepared the Prussian army for things to come.

Then, in 1866 Prussia declared war on Austria as a way of eliminating Austria's influence in the confederation. Austria was defeated and Prussia annexed four Austrian States. The North German Confederation was formed which included all the former states except Austria and a few southern states.

In 1870 Bismarck tricked France in to declaring war on Prussia. As the French army marched to Berlin the southern states were forced to turn to Prussia for help. Together they defeated the French at Sedan ending the Second French Empire. In 1871, while Paris was under siege, the King of Prussia was proclaimed German Emperor (not Emperor of Germany!) and the German Empire was born.

Under the ambitious Emperor Wilhelm I and the even more ambitious Emperor Wilhelm II German nationalism reached its peak. By using propaganda the German people were led to believe they had to conquer their rightful leading role in world politics. However, while other nations had already successfully secured their role, Germany found itself land-locked between well established borders: Holland and Belgium in the west, France in the south-west, Austria-Hungary in the south-east, Russia in the east and Denmark in the north.

Furthermore, none of Germany's states had a seafaring tradition which as a result left them without any overseas colonies. Although they eventually acquired some scraps of territory in Africa they were not able to secure the profit-making colonies to which other nations had access.

They were too late, the world was already divided! Wilhelm II's erratic diplomacy and huge navy program were amongst the reasons which eventually lead to World War I, a war which, as you know, ended disastrous for Germany. "Dreadnought" by Robert K. Massie covers this topic brilliantly!

The economic malaise Germany found itself in, especially after 1929, paved the way for Hitler and the NSDAP. After he came to power he used the same tactics as Bismarck to appeal on the German sense of nationalism to reach his goals. First he convinced the German people Germany wasn't complete until every German was able to live in Germany (Heim Ins Reich), which led to the annexation of Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland and Memelland. All of this by using diplomacy alone (and a little threatening with war). Then he united the Germans by providing them with a common enemy: Jews and other undesirables, they were the cause of Germany's defeat in 1918! Finally Prussia's former possessions in the east (Poland) were to be brought back under Germany's influence in order to create room to expand (Lebensraum). The rest is history....

A lot of people then stood behind their Fuehrer, as of today some of them still do, I've met one of them, it's shocking!

 

As far as I can tell, it was solid gray, but my guess is they didn't prep the surface much, just slopped gray hull paint over the swastika and red field, which may account for it peeling off after years of submersion.  This happens a lot on real ships, especially wood boats!  About three years ago, they had a classic boat race here on Narragansett Bay, and on the final stretch, just off Rose Island light, there was a little Herreshoff 'Fish' class sloop charging for the finish while sailing almost dead downwind.  The wind shifted, the boat gybed, and because the mainsheet was cleated off, the sloop capsized, came up, capsized again, and then went down in about 80' of water!  It was recovered about six weeks later, but by that time all the wood had swelled, and all the white paint and varnish was peeling off all over the boat.  My guess is even if the sailors on the Bismarck had prepped the wood deck painting area well it wouldn't have mattered much, as it was apparently a different kind of paint from what was underneath (paint intended for metal, vs paint intended for wood?)

Really?  I kept on learning something new about the Bismarck.  I am wondering if the swasatika was be able to see thur the gray paint like a "fade" or was it soild gray paint?

Yup, Bismarck went through a number of different paint schemes, and each one simpler than the last.  I think she had the big swastikas on a red field when she was in the Baltic as an aerial recognition feature (didn't want to be bombed by the Luftwaffe by mistake!), but once she was ready to head for the open Atlantic from Norway, the fewer identifying features the better......

searat12

ahhh  gotcha!   thanks for clearing up,  for some reason i always thought the swasakita was already on the bow/stern when it sunk and never knew that it was actually covered up with gray paint.

Because the very recent gray paint peeled after being immersed in seawater for 60 years..... Please have a look at:  http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/paint_schemes/paintbism1941rheinubung.html

 

This is the MOST comprehensive source for Bismarck and other Kriegsmarine ships that I have come across.....

searat12

u telling me that the day when bismarck sunk there was no swastikas on the bow or stern  if so why do i see it on Dr Ballards video when he discovered Bismarck?

The one with NO swastikas, and a fairly simple gray paintjob (a rough 50 & 51 as i recall)

thank you all for more comments

chris~  which one is the right one just before the Bismarck sunk in may?

Would not the remedy to this particular problem be to depict the ship as she was during her commissioning trials in 1940, or on Rheinubung itself? As just pointed out, at neither of these stages of her career did the Bismarck have the German national flag painted on her decks for aerial recognition -  in the Baltic n 1940, a large warship would hardly be anything but German, and in the North Atlantic in 1941, the last thing a German warship would want to do would be to draw attention to herself!

You're probably familiar with this site:

http://www.bismarck-class.dk/bismarck/paint_schemes/paintbism1940.html

but if not, it shows the relevant colour schemes. Because the flags are much smaller than the air recognition markings, it's much easier to replace the swastikas with crosses and not be noticed. That said, Peddinghaus decals, a German firm, seems to have had no legal problems releasing decals for the Bismarck and other German warships, featuring Gernam naval ensigns, complete with swastikas:

http://www.peddinghaus-decals.de/index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=15&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1

Their air recognition flags, however, do feature 2-part swastikas. There is a let-out clause in the German legislaton which permits the depiction of NSDAP emblems for reasons of historical accuracy, but understandably, many model show organiizers would prefer not to take the risk.

From a personal point of view, I spent a large part of my youth in Germany, hate the NSDAP and all it stood for, and fully understand and support the general ban on displaying NSDAP symbols there. That said, I don't have any personal problems, here in England, displaying swastikas on models if ,for reasons of historical accuracy, the need arises. I do draw the line on building models of members of the SS, their vehicles and equipment.

Cheers,

Chris.

Well, here's something I have not yet seen mentioned, and that is when Bismarck squared off against the Hood and Prince of Wales, she didn't have swastikas painted on her decks at all!  They had been painted out, along with the fancy camoflage job, so if you want to represent Bismarck as she was in battle, you would simply paint a grey band across the deck in the bow, and in the stern.  If you want to give your model an earlier paint job (like just before she was repainted in Norway for her 'big adventure,' then you would have the black swastikas on a white field (I don't see any reason why a Nazi ship shouldn't LOOK like a Nazi ship, cuz that's what it was!  You might as well only show a film with Hitler in it, but only minus the mustache.  If you have a problem with depictions of Nazi gear, or worry that someone might be offended, then you shouldn't build models of them at all.).  And if you want Bismarck's initial deployment paint job in all her glory (when she was working up in the Baltic), then the black swastikas on the white circles also have a red field behind...... Note, Bismarck started off with very prominent swastikas for all to see, and in stages, reduced, and finally eliminated them entirely, so the choice is up to you! 

One issue that I have with the omission of the swastika is that I have seen models include the red band and white circle. I would rather either include the swastika as being historically accurate or leave the deck painted in wood.  The glaring white circle in a field of red is so obviously incorrect that it detracts from the model.

I also appreciate the comments about how Admiral Raeder and Admiral Lutjens allowed Jewish officers and sailors to continue to serve, renderring the naval salute.  Histories often ignore that Germans were not all Nazi!

Bill Morrison

Bill,
Please email me at pavlvsmax@gmail.com if you would like to contact me directly.

Paul

First of all, Father, see my PM as I'd like to get to know you and our religion can't be a topic, per se.

Of course it's interesting that many people find the swastika offensive, and well they should. In particular our brethren, the Jews. The old argument that " I know Jews who don't have a problem with it" is hogwash. They all or at least 99% do. However that is not the issue.

They also are the ones who continue to carry and remind us of the history of the Shoa, and would be the last to suggest that suppression of this symbol is a desired thing. The argument that it's not "PC" is uninformed.

The one single reason that swastikas are banned in places, in modeling, is in German Federal Law. Wiki has about as good an article about it as I've ever seen, based on the sources cited, and I've lived in Northern Europe for years at a time and heard it all. Nazism lives on, and the BRD, now unified Germany, has to deal with that for at least the next 50 years. It's like gang graffiti to them.

Thanks, Bill

Thank you all for the comments you made.  It actually makes me think twice  if i should put the swaskita symbol on the Bismarck which more likely i will since most of you all mention that it does reprecent the history that actually happened.  I personally hate to see the swasakita symbol in the public since myself im deaf and nazsi does horrible thing to deaf people as well to jewish.  but building the models with the symbol on it might be okay for me since i want to reprecent the actual history.  at the same time I might talk to some of my friends who are jewish and hopefully they might understand why i put it there.  like everyone says  its show the acutal history. 

Again  I want to thank everyone for all of ur comments so that I can be sure about it.  Feel free to type up more comments/feedbacks.  I will show you my Bismarck once its compete.

Pavlvs~  i learned something new about captain of Bismarck which i never knew about. 

I find it interesting that many people find the presence of a swastika offensive but I've seen many models of WWII Soviet armor that says "Za Stalina" in Russian on the turret as well as Soviet aircraft. The phrase means, "For Stalin" and it is a close debate as to who was the greater monster of history.

I can relate to being offended. I am a Catholic Priest and I am regularly faced with ridicule because many of my brother priests have done some horrible things in recent years with the scandals and I have had to apologize for their behavior on behalf of the Catholic Church and although I abhor what they did, I cannot ignore it. It is precisely because people in authority covered it up and pretended it did not happen that it continued for decades and many were permanently hurt because of it. I have been refused service when I wear my black outfit with the roman collar because the store or restaurant "doesn't serve predators." Obviously someone similarly dressed hurt them or someone close to them and all I do is pray for healing on their part.

I feel for anyone who suffered under tyranny of any kind. My grandmother's dear friend spent three years at Birgen-Belsen and was permanently physically disfigured by it. I showed her a stick and tissue model of an Me-109 with the requisite swastika on the fin and all she had to say was that she admired my workmanship. My grandmother corrected me for showing it to her and told me of her camp days and I apologized to her friend Nancy for upsetting her and she told me she never thought for a second that I was promoting the Nazis but was rather building a model of a piece of history that I thought was cool looking which was the case. She told me that if we forget history we are bound to repeat it and I agree. War is a thing that brings out the worst in humanity and the best in men. We see courage and gallantry, horror and brutality at the same time.

Ironically, the captain of the Bismarck was not a member of the nazi party and never allowed his men to use the nazi salute. Admiral Rader who rode on the Bismarck during Exercise Rhine refused to dismiss the Jewish officers under his command and also only used the traditional salute.

Building a model of any war machine could be construed as glorifying killing or as remembering history or the genius of the one who designed it or the bravery of the one who flew/drove/sailed it.

I cannot control how someone else reacts to what I say with my model. I can only control what I am saying and as long as I am saying what I mean to say and it is good and true, I say it confidently and if someone dislikes it, I tell them I am sorry they feel that way but I know what I say and I say it. Pleasing all of the people all of the time is impossible. I please God and myself and that is all I can do and I am absolutely convinced God has no problem with an accurate depiction of history no matter how unpleasant.

If someone is "offended on behalf of" a group I'm a little suspect of their motivation.

How about having  a disclaimer on the model, "this model is built to represent history and does not serve of an endorsement of any political beliefs, groups, or movements past or present."

One of the best answers I have ever read from you John. You have put the matter into words in a very careful and well thought out manner. My most sincere compliments.

Julian

I have to admit I have mixed feelings about all this.

When I teach a history course I feel like I'm obligated to relate the facts, insofar as I'm able to figure out what they are.  Sometimes the facts aren't pleasant, but that doesn't mean they aren't part of history.  To pretend the Nazi Part never existed would, in the context of a history course or a history textbook, be almost criminally irresponsible.

When it comes to non-historical subjects, I tend to feel the same way.  Some years back our state art museum took some flak when it did a temporary exhibition by an artist whose theme was spouse abuse.  I don't believe in spouse abuse - but I don't try to pretend it doesn't happen.  The art exhibit in question wasn't intended to glorify wife-beating; it was intended to increase public awareness of the problem.  (And I think it did so.)

I also recall a protest against an exhibit at our university library.  The exhibit consisted of a series of graphics dealing with the American Revolution.  The leader of the protest - a professor in the School of Education, I'm embarrassed to say - claimed that the pictures glorified war.  (She also objected, for the same reason, when one of her own kids was required to read All Quiet on the Western Front in his high school English class.  When she was informed that the book in question is generally recognized as one of the great anti-war novels of the twentieth century she didn't have any response.  I'm pleased to report that this particular professor is no longer at the university.)

I certainly don't see anything wrong, or inappropriate, about building a model of the Bismarck.  I have a model of the Graf Spee in my own small collection; I spent quite a bit of time on the Nazi eagle at the stern, the coats of arms on the bow (and the turrets - though they're too small to decipher), etc.  I think that's all part of history, and recognizing that it existed doesn't imply the modeler's approval or disapproval of it.  (I see it as a minor historical irony that two of the most vicious, totalitarian governments in history, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, built some of the twentieth century's best-looking warships.)

I've also seen some models that I did think were inappropriate.  One that comes to mind immediately was a "fantasy" diorama depicting an imaginary, stylized pirate raping a woman.  To my eye, at least, the intent of the model pretty clearly was sensationalism and titilation.  That sort of thing has no place in my hobby.  I don't claim any right to ban such stuff from aybody else's hobby, but I have no interest in it.

I guess I can understand why some people - especially those who can remember the actual events in question - find the very sight of the swastika offensive.  And I've seen it used in some contexts that I find pretty offensive myself - contexts in which it's clearly being used as a symbol of anti-semitism, white supremacism, etc.  In my personal opinion, there's a world of difference between building a scale model of a BF-109 with a swastika on its fin and carrying a Nazi flag in a rally.  But I guess there is a question of degree there, and quite a bit of room for personal opinion.

I ran into a vaguely similar issue once in a ship model club.  I was starting a model of the steamboat Virginia, the C&O ferry that for many years carried passengers and freight between Norfolk and Hampton.  (She was a beautiful little ship, and my old employer, the Mariners' Museum, had a fine set of plans for her.  Maybe some day I'll actually finish that model.)  The C&O, in those days, was obligated under Virginia law to provide "separate but equal" accommodations (cabins, restrooms, water fountains, etc.) for white and "colored" passengers.  Several signs saying "Colored Waiting Room," "Colored Men's Restroom," etc. were visible in exterior photos of the ship.  I took several such photos to a club meeting and told one of our black members, "John, I'd like your opinion on something.  If I build this model, should I include those signs or not?"  His reaction was interesting.  First he laughed.  (He was too young to have experienced the Jim Crow South himself.)  Then he said, "Absolutely."  I said, "You wouldn't find those signs offensive?"  He said, "I'd be offended if you left them off.  That stuff is history." 

The more I thought about it, the more firmly I concluded that my friend was right.  But I can also understand why some other African American might have a different opinion.  If I'd finished my model of the Virginia I probably would have either (a) included a label on the base that carefully explained the context of those signs, or (b) been mighty careful where I showed it off. 

My knee-jerk reaction to such controversies tends to be, "Let history speak for itself."  But I also feel obliged to take other people's feelings into consideration, and I don't feel entitled to pronounce their opinions "wrong" just because they differ from mine.  This is, after all, a hobby.  When I teach a history course I figure one of my jobs is to stir up people's brains and make them think about controversial, contentious issues.  But that's not why I build ship models.