A Wehrpass, right or wrong?

[Akira Takiguchi]

Here is a Wehrpass unit page.

I can see two hands. Note that crude hand even writes <i>Kdr Schutz Abt 4</i> where it should read <i>Krd ...</i> (Kradsch&uuml;tzen-Abteilung).

[Akira Takiguchi]

But when I see it being a <i>Zweitschrift</i> pass issued on April 15, 1943, I don't feel quite right... Or just my lack of experience maybe...

For a <i>Zweitschrift</i> pass why was it necessary to use two hands to fill in the lost entries?

[Gary T]

Absolutely nothing wrong with it from what I can tell...

[Ian Jewison]

Ditto, the clerk in my opinion got it wrong!!!

As you know I do know that Herr Pisselhoy did exist and he is confirmed as the Abteilung Arzt of that particular unit.

That currently would say "Commander Rifle Battalion 4", which if I remember correctly did not exist!

Can we see more?

/Ian

[polux]

Hello Akira,

I take advantage of this file to wish you a merry anniversary.

Cordial greetings.

Polux
__________________

Post Tenebras Lux

[Akira Takiguchi]

Guys, thank you for your opinion. Polux, thank you for your words.

Pisselhoy's photo & document albums are very rich and consistent, nothing wrong with it. The Wehrpa&szlig; was not really a suspect when I checked photos from the seller... I had considered <i>Kdr</i>/<i>Krd</i> stuff OK after having found another page where he writes correctly <i>Krd</i>. I should have realized it to be a <i>Zweitschrift</i> back then, because such inaccuracy happens mostly during copying. Also I should have expected it to be a <i>Zweitschrift</i> because it is a Stalingrad Wehrpa&szlig;.

Well, when I received the real thing, I realized that it is a <i>Zweitschrift</i> issued in 1943. I looked at page 12 again, and wondered: "2./Erg(?).Batl.2 [1936], 2./San.Ers.Abt.1 [1939], Radf.Abt.1 [1939] are by the same hand (a clerk who always omits horizontal line of "t", this guy filled most of the entries) but Bau Batl.335 [1939] and Kdr<i>(sic)</i>. Schtz Abt 4 [1942] are apparently by a different hand (who writes horizontal line of "t"). The pass was reissued in 1943... So usually these pre-43 entries should have been written by one clerk? At least my few <i>Zweitschrift</i> Wehrp&auml;&szlig;e, entries before reissue are always written by one clerk."

I really don't know about the precise reissueing process of a <i>Zweitschrift</i> pass... So this is just my fakephobia syndrome... And a huge number of Wehrp&auml;&szlig;e must have been reissued after Stalingrad. So many weird things could have happened, of course. I take Gary's words and now feel a lot better before my birthday ends!

<font color=yellow>Can we see more?</font>

What specifically?

[Ian Jewison]

It would be a Zweitschrift as his first would have been lost to the enemy or destroyed by enemy action at Stalingrad.
I would imagine there is a note to that effect or something like "New issue, as member of the former 6 Army"

[Akira Takiguchi]

Yes, here it is!

[Akira Takiguchi]

Dr. Pisselhoy with his PKW. Note the 24.Panzer-Division insignia.

[Akira Takiguchi]

A nice portrait.

[Angel Farré]

Can we see the battle pages and the award ones?

Perhaps it was filled in two different periods as being a replacement some info can be available when filled by the first clerck and he simply left an empty space to update it later, but when info arrives the clerck was not the same so two different handwrites. I have own and see others with this particularity and one with a separate entry in a different page detailing a period service not listed in the proper page.

Angel

[Akira Takiguchi]

Sent you a PM!

[Angel Farré]

Thanks a lot, Akira.

Angel