cancelled KC holders / state of the science / KC lists

[Jan-Hendrik]

But Scherzer is then doing exactly what you claim the ODR shouldn't do. By negating certain awards sixty years after the fact due to some very strict criteria that was almost impossible to follow at the end of the war, he's taking it upon himself to remove these awards

Just by repeating this utter nonsense do not become fact

He did not "remove" anyone, he just proofed who is an official recipent according to the terms of german law, not more, not less. The ones who thought that they can make a law on their own, that were the OdR

Any future writer, who still recitate von Seemen, with his many illegals, with his integration of RKT who simply just existed in the phantasy of the OdR, were even many pitty cases exist that he was not able to mention the proper unit of the awardholder (archives? What such weird stuff could be good for?? )!

You can rant around how want, OdR can do so, too...but the actual Standard work on RKT is Scherzer...and believe, 2nd Edition will be faster sold out than the 1st one...while you can get the von Seemen on E-Bay for 5 Euros already

Jan-Hendrik

[Dieter Zinke]

Finally this therapy may help those who are to be converted to the truth:

To know what you know and know what you do not know is the character of one who knows.
Kung Fu Tzu (Confucius),

and eventually the Nobel Prize winner of 1973 Konrad Lorenz said:
Gesagt ist nicht gehört, gehört ist nicht verstanden, verstanden ist nicht einverstanden, einverstanden ist nicht durchgeführt, durchgeführt ist nicht beibehalten.
(Told isn’ t heard, heard isn’ t understood, understood isn’ t credited, credited isn’ t realized, realized isn’ t maintained)

O Herr lass Hirn vom Himmel regnen !
The Lord may allow the raining of brains from the heaven !

Dieter Z.

[krichter33]

I never mentioned von Seemen. And as more books are written in the future on RK winners, we'll see which works are considered standard. I could care less how many copies his work sells, I bought a copy myself. What really matters is how his research will be applied in future works on Ritterkreuzträger. We already see new books being written on RK winners that still keep the Fellgiebel list, and only mention Scherzer as a footnote, or in parenthesis. And as future RK books are written we'll see how many continue doing this. But like I said before, to each his own. Thank you.

[Bernd R]

Jack and krichter33,

in addition to the statements of Jan-Hendrik and Dieter, take a look at this case here, which I quote from the "Awardholders" sticky. It includes a lot of the recent discussion - "unofficial" in general / "deserved" / late war situation / books and future books. It also includes a portion of my arguments.

RE : 23. Panzer-Division [page 30]
This unit has been added to the Factbook yesterday http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1296
and Marcus got a hint by a viewer about the possbile addition of a further "unofficial" KC holder :

Elsner, Herbert 10.04.1945 Oberfeldwebel Stabs.Kp II./Pz.Rgt 23

Although we had a detailed review of this Div. and we could state that he is not listed by both, Fellgiebel and Scherzer, we missed to come across this case.
Based on the info and material about him we should add him to the list - to have the case and not to miss or to suppress it.
mentioned : http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=31700
photo / info (not listed by Rebentisch, 23. PD history) : http://forum.panzer-archiv.de/viewtopic ... ad95cbdea7
"Elsner case" / items, documents, uniform :
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/ ... ght=elsner
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/ ... ght=Elsner
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/ ... ght=Elsner

Any additions - document photo perhaps - or further info/comments are welcome !

Bernd

RE : 23. Pz.Div : new entry :

Unofficial / Unconfirmed
7. Elsner, Herbert 10.04.1945 Oberfeldwebel Stabs.Kp II./Pz.Rgt 23
[not listed by Fellgiebel and Scherzer ; not listed in the divisional history by Rebentisch ; various info and material is available, most of it provided in the work : "The Panzer Soldier" by Wade Krawczyk, pages 85-92 , which indicates that Elsner was awarded the KC unofficially]
for further info :
photo / info : http://forum.panzer-archiv.de/viewtopic ... ad95cbdea7
"Elsner case" / items, documents, uniform :
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/ ... ght=elsner
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/ ... ght=Elsner
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/ ... ght=Elsner

Bernd

book excerpt :
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 38#1144138

Thanks, Marcus !

The Factbook reader who did give you the hint and who was talking about a "KC document" unfortunately is wrong, unclear at least !
Also I have to state a complete misinterpretation by the author Wade Krafczyk !

The document is a so-called "Bescheinigung" (= certificate ; receipt) that Ofw. Elsner was handed in on 10.04.1945 [submitted] (= "eingereicht worden ist") to be awarded with the KC. The meaning is - that' obvious - that the proposal started it's way through the official channels. This is confirmed by the document.

This fact is translated here -> "[...] was bestowed with..." . That's just wrong.
bestowal = Verleihung. The certificate does not say that Elsner received the KC in a frontline award ceremony (would read "verliehen worden ist").

So, the document is convincing - but not in the sense it is explained here. The translation and the interpretation of the author therefore can be dismissed very lightly !

To avoid any misunderstanding : there is no doubt - according to the material presented and available - that Elsner was honoured for his duty in a frontline ceremony, thereby receiving a EK2 meant to be a KC and meant to be a KC bestowal. Most probably his KC proposal didn't made it's way through the superiors and finally to the Heerespersonalamt. This might be the reason why the award wasn't entered in his Wehrpass.
He personally was honoured by his superiors and comrades by giving him a solemn award ceremony - and I think that's what counts the most.

From the restrospective view this KC award has to be classified as "unofficial" (classical case).
Not a single word said thereby the award wasn't deserved or the award is taken away !
It's just the attempt to name the historical situation as it happened.

Bernd

krichter33,
I hope you expect future works not such unclear and confusing.

Bernd

[krichter33]

The recent RK books I've seen have not been unclear or confusing. They have been pretty straightforward. I don't understand your argument. Elsner is NOT listed in Fellgiebel. So the ODR does not accept his award as being legitimate. So what are you trying to argue. Another example would be that of sniper Sepp Allerberger. According to him he was awarded the RK by Field Marshall Schorner in April of 1945. And it makes sense that he was, since he had achieved well over 200 kills. Other snipers like Hetzenauer and Pein had already been officially awarded their RK's for a similar score. However, because Allerberger could not prove that he was awarded the RK the ODR refuses to accept it. My point is that the ODR doesn't just "hand out" RK's to anyone who said they were awarded one. There has to be some proof that they did. And I for one accept the ODR's method of determination. There are probably quite a few "unofficial" RK's like Elsner's and Allerberger's that the ODR doesn't accept. I don't understand why you mentioned Elsner if he is not recognized by the ODR or listed in Fellgiebel???

[Bernd R]

krichter33,

OK, I don't want to insist here. Of course it's not an "OdR-accepting-case", your are right. But if you don't see the structure which is implied here and if you are not interested in the case otherwise - no problem.

The structure which I mean and which we desperately want to explain to you is that you have an absolutely different understanding of what an "award" is and what the meaning of "awarded" is ! I tend to say your understanding is wrong, at least you have not explained so far how and why it could be correct.
You said :

...My point is that the ODR doesn't just "hand out" RK's to anyone who said they were awarded one. There has to be some proof that they did. And I for one accept the ODR's method of determination. ...

My argumentation is :
Scherzer has no "method of definition" you might say ; he is just wondering why 200+ men are listed as KC holders for 60 years now who don't fell into the official procederes of law, Verordnung, Heerespersonalamt and all that stuff ! Those who listed, you might say "awarded" them have to explain why !! Not Scherzer.
He is just pointing out their cases and as a conclusion is regarding them not as official recipients.
This is absolutely in the logic of 7000+ other recipients.

If there is or should be an "extra law" / a "lex may 1945" it is the same like above : is has to be explained by those people who want it ; it's not up to Scherzer.
If the discussion comes to this essential point you can talk about this varaint. I don't see this kind of argumentation so far.
OdR / Fellgiebel said : oh yes, there was a proposal ; bad luck, it did stuck in the bureaucracy or maybe the approval of a commander is lacking ; nevertheless, Yeah, we have a new member ; let's say : KC awarded "08.05.1945"
So, should we follow this "method of definition" ?
Is this the way of historical research you want to follow ?


Well, I don't ask you to give proofs or to provide a compilation for all the men of the page 1 "unofficial" list.

But, come on. Straight, clear, and with arguments - give us your comment on the oakleaves for Josef von Radowitz (to stay with the 23. Pz.Div) ; one example I picked out by chance.

Unofficial / Unconfirmed
1. Radowitz von, Joseph [882. EL] 09.05.1945 Generalleutnant Kdr 23. Pz.Div
[proposal arrived at HPA on 30.04.1945 ; positive comments of all superiors ; rejected by Major Domaschk as not sufficient on 01.05.1945 with suggestion : "Entscheid Chef OKW" ; nothing to find in the files about such a decision ; messages to the headquarter units of R. on 02.05.1945 (Kav.Korps / Pz.AOK 2 / HGr Süd) : "...ist abgelehnt worden, da ... die vom Führer gegebenen Verleihungsrichtlinien nicht erfüllt sind. I.A. gez. Maisel" ; # "882" given by OdR and award date determined by Fellgiebel]

Why are you of the opinion that he was "awarded" when a radio message was sent that the proposal was rejected ?

Bernd

[krichter33]

I never said any organization is perfect, and that goes the same with the ODR. If Radowitz's Oakleaves recomendation was officially rejected then their is no way it should have been approved. The same goes with the case of Willi Fey. I believe he is recognized by the ODR, though there is no evidence whatsoever that he received this award. There are mistakes made in such groups, yet, I believe that the majority of the cases have evidence. Why would the ODR accept Radowitz's Oakleaves, and Fey's RK, yet not accept Allerbeger's RK. So, yes you are right there are discrepencies that should be corrected. But I never argued about that. If you noticed on my first post on page one I said that awards that are outright false should not be accepted. That is awards that have no evidence whatsoever, or evidence to the contrary. In the case of the Dietrich awards on May 6, 1945, I accept those as proper, because there is enough evidence provided by Dietrich that he did award those men. But in a case like Allerberger, where he says he was awarded, yet there is no evidence at all, or word from Schorner, then it can't be accepted. But, yes, I never disagreed when it comes to awards that have no evidence, and those instances should be corrected. But what I disagree with is negating all those awards that have evidence, yet are considered "unofficial." For example all the awards approved by Donitz on May 9, should be counted. If Scherzer and others wants to list these 200+ men as being "unofficial" that's fine. As long as their names are not discarded then he can call them whatever he wants. But, once again, I agree with you, there are discrepencies among those official ODR awards. Yes, some might have been accepted, that shouldn't. But I believe cases like Radowitz and Fey are rare, compared to the others. Because like I said before, it makes no sense to accept some awards with no evidence while dismissing others, like Allerberger. I hope you know what I mean.

[Jan-Hendrik]

And you never asked yourself why the OdR did no research to clear those unclear cases up or why they deny the work that should have been done by themselves, but that has been done by someone else??

Jan-Hendrik

[Bernd R]

krichter33,

I know what you mean. In German the saying is : "Wo gehobelt wird, fallen Späne"
Freely interpreted, the OdR didn't use the florett, they used the sledge-hammer.

The number of awards which is in dispute here is about 3% of the number of KCs awarded in total. For the lesser part of it I see we have a kind of agreement that it's neccessary to re-check those at least, not to say to edit the listing which after that could be accepted as "correct".

So, there is still disagreement about the bigger part !
So-called "Dietrich awards" and awards according to the so-called "Dönitz-Erlass" turned out to be the subjects of further discussion.

Regarding Allerberger :
His case is comparable to Elsner. On 20th April 1945 - together with Josef Roth - he was driven to the Korpsgefechtsstand at MÖNNIGHOFEN, a little village near Mährisch-Ostrau. There he was awarded the KC (EK2 used) by GFM Schörner on behalf of the Führer. He was handed out the writing of Schörner and signed photographs of Schörner and Div.Kdr. Klatt. Additionally he got a present box with food, cigarrettes and cognac.
Wasn't a very solemn ceremony and was conducted by a Oberst i.G.
[add by me : Allerberger was with 8./Geb.Jäg.Rgt. 144 / 3. Geb.Div. ; so, it has to be the Gefechtsstand of XXXXIX. Gebirgs-AK /Pz.AOK 1/HGr Mitte ; the Oberst i.G. most probably was the Chef d. Gen.St. of the Korps, couldn't determine his name ; maybe someone knows him ? ; GFM Schörner didn't have authorization to award KCs pre 3rd May 1945 ; nevertheless decided to do so on Führer's birthday]

source :
Albrecht Wacker, "Im Auge des Jäger" - Der Wehrmachts-Scharfschütze Josef Allerberger, 6. Auflage 2007, Verlag VS-BOOKS Herne, ISBN 978-3-932077-27-2

regards, Bernd

[krichter33]

Very interesting about Allerberger. I think it's unfortunate for him that his award was never proven. Anyways. I agree that re-checking Rk awards that have no proof should be done. And if historians want to list those 200+ Rk winners as unofficial, then they can do so. I just personally don't want to see those names ever disappear completely from any list. Put an asterisk beside them or whatever, but at least let those names remain, especially sixty years after the fact. I feel this way because it is obvious that the strict procedures and guidelines that were in place during the war to award RK's had fallen apart, as the Reich itself was falling apart. So without the ability to get such awards approved following the old guidelines, then, considering the state of the war, I believe any award given by a high ranking general officer, where there is proof that this happened, should count. Maybe it's not "official" considering the old standards, yet I would feel ashamed to tell that individual sixty years later, that his award is revoked because official guidelines that didn't really exist anymore weren't followed. So list them as unofficial if you want to, I just hope in the future those names will still remain in the RK lists, unofficial or not. I hope you understand my opinion. I have nothing against Scherzer personally, and I think his research on late war awards is valuable, and I intend to buy the second edition whenever it comes out. But all I am saying is that those 200+ names that are deemed unofficial due to not following proper awarding procedures should still be included on any list. As far as the "Dietrich awards" and the "Dönitz Erlass" I'd be happy to discuss those further. The Dietrich awards I believe should be recognized because like I said before they were made by a high ranking general officer, with proof that they were made. Yes, Dietrich wasn't one of the officially sanctioned generals to give such awards, yet at this stage, two days before the end of the war, with Hitler dead, and the Reich in complete ruin, I don't see why the awards shouldn't count. Especially considering Dietrich was the hightest ranking officer in the Waffen-SS. But, for the sake of this discussion, if those awards made by Dietrich are to be considered unofficial, then so be it. As long as those awards remain listed, then that's fine with me. For example in Berger's The Face of Courage, he lists Sylvester Stadler as having won the RK with Oakleaves and Swords, but after the swords date in parenthesis he mentions that this award was technically unofficial. But at least Berger still lists that award. That's fine with me. As for the Dönitz-Erlass I don't understand why Scherzer considers them to be unofficial. Donitz was the head of state at this time. Though the war officially ended on May 8, Dönitz remained head of state of the so called Flensburg Government until it was dissolved on May 23. So why couldn't he award those RK's on May 9? I don't understand Scherzer's reasoning. Maybe you can explain it to me.

[Bernd R]

Thread has been de-stickied and made a normal topic due to very long time no posting / reply.
The link to the thread has been installed in the index on top of the site, so it's easy to refind the thread after shifting through the pages for further contributions.

Bernd / Mod

[Panzermahn]

Hi all

I don't have Scherzer's book but what happens to those "de facto" RK awarded AFTER 9th May 1945? If I am not mistaken, there is a KC awarded to a naval commander for minesweeping activities in June 1945

By the way, there is a photo of Heinrich Scherhorn (CO of the fictional KG Scherhorn) that was published in Robert W. Stephan's Stalin's Secret War: Soviet Counterintelligence against the Nazis 1941-1945. If anyone is interested, I could scan it and post it in here to a list of of cancelled KC holders

[Dieter Zinke]

By the way, there is a photo of Heinrich Scherhorn (CO of the fictional KG Scherhorn) that was published in Robert W. Stephan's Stalin's Secret War: Soviet Counterintelligence against the Nazis 1941-1945. If anyone is interested, I could scan it and post it in here to a list of of cancelled KC holders

We all are very interested

Dieter Z.

[Panzermahn]

OberstleutnantHeinrich Scherhorn (wikipedia Knight's Cross page listed him as does not exist but legal documentation for his KC award existed)

Source: Robert W. Stephan, Stalin's Secret War: Soviet Counterintelligence against the Nazis 1941-1945, University Press of Kansas (2004)

May I add that this book is the most definitive study of Operation Berezino (Soviet radio playback to convince the Germans the existence of KG Scherhorn) and Operation Scherhorn (German efforts to drop supplies and sending agents to KG Scherhorn) in English. The author even mentioned about Luftwaffe KG 200 efforts to drop two radio-equipped four men SS teams (all are Russian SS agents and they should be from SS-Jagdverband Ost under Adrian von Foelkersam) without informing Scherhorn in order to verify the existence KG Scherhorn. But sadly, one of the Russian SS radio operators betrayed the team and turn himself to Soviet Counterintelligence with all codebooks and passcodes enable the Soviet counterintelligence team to conduct efficient radio playbacks

heinrich scherhorn.jpg

[Jan-Hendrik]

Good example for Scherzers Research work are the both 'cases' of Fsch.Stug.Brig. 12, Gersteur and Hengstler.

The proposal for Dr.Hengstler was clearly rejected, he was awarded with the DKiG.
The proposal for Gersteuer arrived at HPA, but no decision was made till war ended.

How was the OdR able to 'confirm' both as RKT?

Jan-Hendrik