Recommendation for Ritterkreuz April 1945
Recommendation for Ritterkreuz April 1945
I have had this document for over 25 years. It was recovered from the Reich Chancellery in July 1945 by a US medical officer who was en route to Potsdam.
As I understand it Deml would not have received the RK since there was no unanimous decision. On April 9th 1945 Foertsch recommended a Mention in Army Orders instead of the RK. However, on the first page of the proposal which is dated 19th April doesn't it say 'Granted'? Burgdorf then signs the document off the next day with 'Submitted'
In any event the poor guy didn't get the RK or, as far as I know, the Mention in Army Orders.
All opinions welcome
Best
Ian
As I understand it Deml would not have received the RK since there was no unanimous decision. On April 9th 1945 Foertsch recommended a Mention in Army Orders instead of the RK. However, on the first page of the proposal which is dated 19th April doesn't it say 'Granted'? Burgdorf then signs the document off the next day with 'Submitted'
In any event the poor guy didn't get the RK or, as far as I know, the Mention in Army Orders.
All opinions welcome
Best
Ian
- Attachments
-
- Deml 1.jpg (90.17 KiB) Viewed 1024 times
-
- Deml 2.jpg (235.21 KiB) Viewed 1024 times
-
- Deml 3.jpg (138.15 KiB) Viewed 1024 times
- Stauffenberg II
- Member
- Posts: 3293
- Joined: 03 Jan 2003, 18:43
- Location: Austria
IAN,
that´s a great document. Thanks for sharing it.
You are right: "Verliehen", ie granted although the Army-C-in-C (Foertsch) didn´t vote for it, but RFSS did!!
The main problem regarding Knight´s Cross is that from mid April, 1945 (about April, 17th) the whole awarding process is not well documented and archived. So all problems regarding the topic "recipient or not recipient" derive from this time frame. This Cross was awarded in late April, 1945 and hence is not listed in Fellgiebel: Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes.
Great job although I have to admit that this document belongs to the German Archives (Bundesarchiv) and should be treated accordingly. It was not that nice from the soldier.
Regards!
that´s a great document. Thanks for sharing it.
You are right: "Verliehen", ie granted although the Army-C-in-C (Foertsch) didn´t vote for it, but RFSS did!!
The main problem regarding Knight´s Cross is that from mid April, 1945 (about April, 17th) the whole awarding process is not well documented and archived. So all problems regarding the topic "recipient or not recipient" derive from this time frame. This Cross was awarded in late April, 1945 and hence is not listed in Fellgiebel: Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes.
Great job although I have to admit that this document belongs to the German Archives (Bundesarchiv) and should be treated accordingly. It was not that nice from the soldier.
Regards!
Hi Stauffenberg,
Well , after I acquired the document, I felt that Deml should probably have received the award so I corresponded with Fellgiebel. He was adamant that Deml should not have received the award. I am still interested to see what the concensus is regarding whether or not this document was conferring the RK on Deml .
In the 1980s someone located Deml's family for me. He was already deceased and I seem to recollect that they weren't that interested in whether or not he should have got the RK. Anyway I did my best!
The question of 'war booty' is always an interesting one. I still have the statement of provenance from the US medical officer who took the document back to the US in 1945. It seems to me that had he not taken it ,it may well have been destroyed and then it would have been lost forever. I am pleased to share this document online with forum members who have an interest in the subject matter.
I look forward to the day when the government archives of the world make their holdings available online to everyone and hopefully free of charge.
Thanks for your input
Best
Ian
Well , after I acquired the document, I felt that Deml should probably have received the award so I corresponded with Fellgiebel. He was adamant that Deml should not have received the award. I am still interested to see what the concensus is regarding whether or not this document was conferring the RK on Deml .
In the 1980s someone located Deml's family for me. He was already deceased and I seem to recollect that they weren't that interested in whether or not he should have got the RK. Anyway I did my best!
The question of 'war booty' is always an interesting one. I still have the statement of provenance from the US medical officer who took the document back to the US in 1945. It seems to me that had he not taken it ,it may well have been destroyed and then it would have been lost forever. I am pleased to share this document online with forum members who have an interest in the subject matter.
I look forward to the day when the government archives of the world make their holdings available online to everyone and hopefully free of charge.
Thanks for your input
Best
Ian
- Stauffenberg II
- Member
- Posts: 3293
- Joined: 03 Jan 2003, 18:43
- Location: Austria
Well Ian,
every RK (and higher grades) bestowal from mid April, 1945 on (April 17th, excluding) should be treated with caution. There is not that much certainty. Covering this time period the Ordenskommission (OdR) had its own (sometimes strange) policy. I don´t think the "Verliehen" is referring to the Ehrenblattspange (on RK proposal papers).
J.
every RK (and higher grades) bestowal from mid April, 1945 on (April 17th, excluding) should be treated with caution. There is not that much certainty. Covering this time period the Ordenskommission (OdR) had its own (sometimes strange) policy. I don´t think the "Verliehen" is referring to the Ehrenblattspange (on RK proposal papers).
J.
Hannes,
Thank you. I have thought about that one as well. Unfortunately I am not sufficiently acquainted with the procedure to know if that could have been the case. Personally I would not have thought that the official procedure would allow for what could otherwise be seen as ambiguos. I would have thought that since this was the official recommendation form for the RK 'Granted' would have related to that award only. However all this was happening on the 20th April..... but even so if he was to have received a Mention in Army Orders I would have thought that they would have made that point more clearly. But that is just my take on it. I am sure other people will have other interpretations.
Best
Ian
Thank you. I have thought about that one as well. Unfortunately I am not sufficiently acquainted with the procedure to know if that could have been the case. Personally I would not have thought that the official procedure would allow for what could otherwise be seen as ambiguos. I would have thought that since this was the official recommendation form for the RK 'Granted' would have related to that award only. However all this was happening on the 20th April..... but even so if he was to have received a Mention in Army Orders I would have thought that they would have made that point more clearly. But that is just my take on it. I am sure other people will have other interpretations.
Best
Ian
- Stauffenberg II
- Member
- Posts: 3293
- Joined: 03 Jan 2003, 18:43
- Location: Austria
Hallo Ian,
I thought that the "Nennung im Ehrenblatt" is something like an exception because by reading the bestowal appointments it is maybe you allowe me to say "small RK"!
A lot of RK applications were "putten down" to "Nennung im Ehrenblatt" and that's why I don't think that there had to be a new application for "Nennung im Ehrenblatt"...
What do you think, does it make sence?
Regards
Hannes
I thought that the "Nennung im Ehrenblatt" is something like an exception because by reading the bestowal appointments it is maybe you allowe me to say "small RK"!
A lot of RK applications were "putten down" to "Nennung im Ehrenblatt" and that's why I don't think that there had to be a new application for "Nennung im Ehrenblatt"...
What do you think, does it make sence?
Regards
Hannes
Stauffenberg,
Yes I would have thought that that would have been the next procedure. Now this is just a scenario. The recommendation was for the RK. It was presumably typed up on the 19th April and the word 'Granted' added at that time. This might indicate that the decision to make the award had already been made but it needed to be formalised by Burgdorf who signed it off the next day. I'm not sure what the next procedure would have been but I guess it then needed Hitler's (?)signature under 'Verliehen' and the date in April. We all know the events which conspired to prevent that happening. If the award that was being granted was the Mention in Army Orders I am just suprised that it wasn't made clearer or that another form wasn't submitted on the basis that, at that point ,everyone knew that the RK was NOT going to be awarded.
Best
Ian
Yes I would have thought that that would have been the next procedure. Now this is just a scenario. The recommendation was for the RK. It was presumably typed up on the 19th April and the word 'Granted' added at that time. This might indicate that the decision to make the award had already been made but it needed to be formalised by Burgdorf who signed it off the next day. I'm not sure what the next procedure would have been but I guess it then needed Hitler's (?)signature under 'Verliehen' and the date in April. We all know the events which conspired to prevent that happening. If the award that was being granted was the Mention in Army Orders I am just suprised that it wasn't made clearer or that another form wasn't submitted on the basis that, at that point ,everyone knew that the RK was NOT going to be awarded.
Best
Ian
Hannes,
What you say makes complete sense. I understand that the Nennung im Ehrenblatt would often be awarded if the act of courage didn't quite justify the RK. It could well be that this was what Deml had been granted . If the procedure is that every comment following a rejection of the award should be interpreted as relating specifically to that rejection then I understand the procedure. But is that the case? Was the RFSS recommending the N i E or the RK? and would the RFSS's comment have made any difference anyway after Foertsch said no to the RK?
Best
Ian
What you say makes complete sense. I understand that the Nennung im Ehrenblatt would often be awarded if the act of courage didn't quite justify the RK. It could well be that this was what Deml had been granted . If the procedure is that every comment following a rejection of the award should be interpreted as relating specifically to that rejection then I understand the procedure. But is that the case? Was the RFSS recommending the N i E or the RK? and would the RFSS's comment have made any difference anyway after Foertsch said no to the RK?
Best
Ian
-
- Member
- Posts: 11158
- Joined: 04 Feb 2003, 17:57
- Location: South UK
Once the decision was made to bestow the award, usually Wilhelm Kment, Hitler's awards officer, wrote in red pencil across the bottom of the front page of the Vorschlag the date on which Hitler or his representative would present the award. On the face of it, this award appears never to have been given, probably as a result of the way the war was going.
Max.
Max.
- Dieter Zinke
- In memoriam
- Posts: 9841
- Joined: 02 Dec 2003, 10:12
- Location: Koblenz / germany
I have some doubts too.
"Verliehen" 19.04.1945
but the next day
"Vorgelegt" 20.04.1945
This is confusing, the succession has to be vice versa.
And if it was a so called "Direktverleihung" (19.04.1945), why "Vorgelegt" the next day, then being abundant.
So the great sensation must still wait a little bit, it' s a pity, but there are absurdities
DZ, very very
"Verliehen" 19.04.1945
but the next day
"Vorgelegt" 20.04.1945
This is confusing, the succession has to be vice versa.
And if it was a so called "Direktverleihung" (19.04.1945), why "Vorgelegt" the next day, then being abundant.
So the great sensation must still wait a little bit, it' s a pity, but there are absurdities
DZ, very very
Max is right. The award was never made. However , Dieter, your point regarding 'Granted' and 'Submit' is well taken. However, it seems possible that the document was typed up on the 19th with the decision to make an award (and we still have to establish if that meant the RK or Mention in Army Orders) ALREADY TAKEN which is why 'Granted' has been added. I don't think the date 19th April relates to the word 'Granted'. I think it is possible that Burgdof wrote 'Submitted' on the 20th April to have the matter formalised. If that is not the case why would anybody type 'Granted'? As I have said previously I am not familiar with the recommendation procedure but logically, with most similar situations ,you would usually be offered a choice e.g 'Granted' or 'Declined' If they knew ,on the 19th April , that there was no prospect of the RK being awarded why take the trouble to send to Burgdorf and why would he take the trouble, knowing that as well, to submit it to the next stage?
If all of this was normal procedure, and everyone understood it, then that's fine because I can understand that. In the meantime it still puzzles me.
Best
Ian
If all of this was normal procedure, and everyone understood it, then that's fine because I can understand that. In the meantime it still puzzles me.
Best
Ian