Interesting Document

[Bob Hritz]

I found this very interesting.

Bob Hritz

[Dietrich Maerz]

Bob,

Here in this sub-forum are for sure more knowledeable members and most of them are even prepared to share their wisdom. I can only give you my opinion based on a fairly solid knowledge of history and the German language. Based on that I would say it is a modern invention. The NSDAP would never have called itself illegal nor would they print something with an incomplete German nonsense sentence.

Dietrich

[peterm]

Bob,

nor would they print something with an incomplete German nonsense sentence.

Dietrich

What sentence do You mean, Dietrich? I see a mistake because of a dot instead of a comma, but no nonsense-sentence.
Kind regards, Peter

[Max_Porter]

... I think in

"Inhaber dieses war in Haft" (Owner of this was imprisoned) there is a word missing.

"Inhaber dieses Ausweises war in Haft" should be correct (ID Card or pass).

In my opinion this doc is to much stamped ....


Best Regards

Max_Porter

[JoeW]

Bob,

Here in this sub-forum are for sure more knowledeable members and most of them are even prepared to share their wisdom. I can only give you my opinion based on a fairly solid knowledge of history and the German language. Based on that I would say it is a modern invention. The NSDAP would never have called itself illegal nor would they print something with an incomplete German nonsense sentence.

Dietrich

To me this card was not intended to be a formal Ausweis. Rather it appears to be a proclamation of early membership AFTER the Anschluss had occurred. Note the card does not call itself Illegal, but rather notes the card owner was an illegal member until 12 Feb 1938. I don't recall seeing one before, but if a fantasy piece, someone went to great lengths to match the ink stamp creations on the reverse to the printed Kreis name on the card. Such an expense of labor should call for more of these to be seen to use the stamps created.

[Dietrich Maerz]

If you want to believe this "card" to be good, so be it.
I never said it is an Ausweis or such, I am just saying it is utter nonsense: historically and from a German language point of view. It was faked for the non-German collector who likes red, NSDAP, and stamps.
There were no illegal members of the NSDAP. They were all "legal" from the point of view of the NSDAP - they were illegal from the point of view of the Austrian state.

[Matthew]

Like I mentioned during the show, Bob- knowing where the actual badge for this type of document resides- it would make sense to try and reunite both.

Since the only writing present on the award itself are numerals, it might even be considered original.

Good score and again- congrats!

cheers

Matt

[Dietrich Maerz]

[Jo Rivett]

A footnote seekers Deee-light, this is! Merci.
The show indeed does "go on" with the same cast & crew! Wunderbar!

[Richard]

Too many things on this are contrary to making me believe in its authenticity. As Dietrich mentioned, there would never be any mention of the "Kampf" being illegal as the NSDAP never once believed that anything they did was illegal or, at least, would never put such in writing. If anything they would refer to an early Mitglied or Kämpfer, not illegal.

If this guy was an "illegal" member in Austria (where, for a time, the NSDAP was outlawed) why would he only be so until February 12 since the Anschluss was March 12? To my recollection, the NSDAP did not achieve legal status in Austria on February 12.

The ink and writing on the first and third lines are different. There are no designations on any of the lines as to what should go there as usually found on most documents (Name, Geburtsdatum, Ort, etc.). There is no signature line for any official to sign and attest to the document. This is usually where any stamp would be found. The three stamps on the reverse look like they were an afterthought and is doesn't appear the document was constructed with any instruction or intent to place stamps and signatures on the blank reverse. There is no mention of any badge associated with this document, and I don't think any official badge for "illegal members of the NSDAP" exists.

I've usually seen the name writtten as Wiener Neustadt (Stadt und Land) with Stadt und Land in parenthesis, though this is a minor issue. Wiener Neustadt is close to Vienna, Ortsgruppe Kirchberg is on the other side of Austria. There are too many issues with this document for me to believe in its authenticity. The lower part, where allegedly the information about the recipient's incarceration should go, is blank. Why would they fill in the top with name, DOB and location but leave the lower part (which seems to be the entire gist for awarding this document) blank?

There is only one document that has, until now, surfaced when there were thousands of "illegal" NSDAP members incarcerated in Austria. Surely more than one would have surfaced and surely they would have surfaced sooner than now.

There is no mention of any time frame involved so it appears without this restriction, one could have become an "illegal" member on February 10th, been arrested that day, incarcerated until February 12th and then been eligible to receive this document.

Bob, is the paper in the background some type of case/envelope that housed this document? Have you checked to see if it is UV negative? Can anyone provide any information/authenticity of the signatures on the reverse?
Richard V

[der-hase-fee]

Thanks for the detailed analysis, Richard V !

"hiemit" is missing the "r", should be "hiermit".

This is the document every Austrian had to produce in order to be considered for a BO.

[Richard]

T
"hiemit" is missing the "r", should be "hiermit".

This is the document every Austrian had to produce in order to be considered for a BO.

Good catch on the spelling. Your last comment does raise a question. Are you saying this document is real or that there were documents such as this which were presented to those in consideration for a second pattern BO?
Richard V

[ErichS]

Good catch on the spelling. Your last comment does raise a question. Are you saying this document is real or that there were documents such as this which were presented to those in consideration for a second pattern BO?
Richard V

Yes, a 2nd pattern BO if Andreas is correct and the document is legit.

[Max_Porter]

... that´s a joke, isn´t it?

THAT document being connected to the second type BO´s?


Best

Max_Porter

[peterm]

"hiemit" is missing the "r", should be "hiermit".

I don't want to say that this doc is an original one, but I have to correct You:

"hiemit" is an old-styled form for "hiermit" and therefore is correct. The same can be told concerning "Inhaber dieses..." German language in 1938 is not the same as in 2015...

Kind regards, Peter