Announcement

**der-hase-fee** · 05-14-2015, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by peterm View Post

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

I believe the different spelling omitting the "r" goes further back than 1938. But perhaps you can contribute a contemporary example, maybe from a book or newspaper article.

**der-hase-fee** · 05-14-2015, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by ErichS View Post

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

That was meant as a joke. I do not consider this document to be authentic.

**Bob Hritz** · 05-14-2015, 10:46 AM

I guess this document will be filed away and hope for future information. I do appreciate all the input. The only way I will learn is to have the discussion with those who have studied paper documents and I thank all those who have participated. I know the museum in Vienna has a huge archive of material related to the annexation of Austria and I will request information from that institution. If it is a fantasy, no one wants to know more than I do.

Bob Hritz

**Jo Rivett** · 05-14-2015, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Bob Hritz View Post

I guess this document will be filed away and hope for future information.....

Good God, this means that you actually bought it`

I thought you`d lifted the image from Snyders site, and were just trying to brighten things up here.

**ODW** · 05-14-2015, 01:25 PM

hiemit is a old regional word from austria, so unfortunately it´s not in the "Duden".

http://www.wissen.de/rechtschreibung/hiemit

Used in 1890: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFas...ummer=10003734
Used in 1900: http://www.mww-forschung.de/blog/blo...0/?tx_news_pi1[controller]=News&tx_news_pi1[action]=detail
Other sources much earlier.

The company Gutenberg Druck - Wiener Neustadt still exists:
http://www.gutenberg-druck.at/

**Bob Hritz** · 05-14-2015, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Jo Rivett View Post

Good God, this means that you actually bought it`

I thought you`d lifted the image from Snyders site, and were just trying to brighten things up here.

Hello Jo,

Yes, I bought it. I am certainly not afraid to laugh at myself when I make a blunder. However, I still think it is worth the time to research. If it turns out to be a duffer, as assumed, we can all have a good laugh on me.

And, Jo, even if you do not believe it, I do appreciate your input.

Bob

**JoeW** · 05-14-2015, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Richard View Post

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. .................................................. .....................
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

Regarding the February 1938 date, while researching my second type Blood Order holder Hans Dobek who was sentenced to life in prison for his complicity in the Dollfuss assassination, I found that Schußnig and Hitler concluded an agreement called the <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->Berchtesgadner Abkommen that freed all "illegal" political prisoners in Austria in February of 1938. Perhaps this was Schußnig's attempt to appease Hitler and forstall the inevitable.

**Jo Rivett** · 05-14-2015, 06:16 PM

Is the aim here is to authenticate this fantasy document, by using the known Abkommen badge (same date as is on doc.) ? Thats the feel this thread has

with a few well placed posts from the word go, building up to....so i might as well post one :-)

**Bob Hritz** · 05-14-2015, 06:29 PM

Thanks for the photo, Jo. I was not aware such a pin existed, but I would love to have one. Perhaps that is what Matt was alluding to in his post.

The document must stand or fall on its own. You have immediately condemned it and that is your prerogative. I will take the time to find out with evidence that satisfies me. We both seek the same, the truth about what is good and bad.

I just don't understand your animosity.

Bob Hritz

**Matthew** · 05-14-2015, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Bob Hritz View Post

Perhaps that is what Matt was alluding to in his post.

Different badge.

cheers

Matt

**JoeW** · 05-14-2015, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Jo Rivett View Post

Is the aim here is to authenticate this fantasy document, by using the known Abkommen badge (same date as is on doc.) ? Thats the feel this thread has

with a few well placed posts from the word go, building up to....so i might as well post one :-)

You know, I get tired of people who pontificate, as well as jump to conclusions. I don't where you got the idea of my attempting to authenticate Bob's document, if that is the direction of your comment. I was trying to bring some historical facts into the general discussion here. Sorry if that does not fit in to your game plan. I commented on Richard's apparent lack of knowledge of the Berchtesgadner Abkommen. And I would like to continue with his seconding of Dietrich's comment about the use of the word "illegal".

Originally posted by Dietrich Maerz View Post

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.

Dietrich, please read the sentence in bold print at the bottom of this excerpt from the 1939 edition of "Daten der Geschichte der NSDAP" by Dr. Hans Volz. I believe it translates "The legal coming to power in Austria by the formerly illegal NSDAP."

Richard, I think this qualifies as seeing the NSDAP calling itself illegal in writing?

**Richard** · 05-15-2015, 06:34 AM

Joe, while I understand the point you are making, it is stating such in a in a book giving a timeline of events and is correct in the use of the term in a historical context as it was illegal to be a member of the NSDAP in Austria. Perhaps this might lend itself to the first use of illegal member.

I still can't see the nazis referring to their "kampf" as illegal as used in the line just above the last red line. They were also considered illegal in Germany at one time and never used that term in any documentation, awards or other propaganda they produced referring to that period. The BO document doesn't state "for the illegal struggle resulting in the culmination of the legal takeover". I can see where it may have some context in describing the members of the party prior to 1938 in Austria but I can't see them calling the struggle illegal. That would be admitting in writing that their entire struggle to come to power was illegal. It just doesn't make sense. Had the term "illegalen" been missing from that last line, the document might be more believable. I think if you read the entire line you refer to in the book page you provided, this is borne out as it refers to the "legale Machtübernahme" to put into context that though to be a member of this political party was made illegal in Austria prior to this time, the take over of the country was entirely legal. I can't see them calling the struggle to reach the point of what they refer to as a legal take over as an illegal struggle.
Richard V

**JoeW** · 05-15-2015, 08:50 AM

Richard, I don't know if it is a question of semantics or what.

"Daten der Geschichte der NSDAP" by Dr. Hans Volz is not just some book giving a time line of events. Are you familiar with it? It was published in several editions from the mid 1930s to 1943 under NSDAP authority. You think it would have been published using a term the NSDAP disapproved of? The history of the early party, the associated formations, developments in Austria, the economic plans....all were covered. The number of DEs presented at each Party Day Rally are given. Of course the word illegal was used in context with the party in Austria. But the fact remains, the Nazis realized they were considered illegal in Austria. They relished in it, especially when they took power.

I don't know what you are referring to with the BO document comment. To me the facts are in print in an official NSDAP publication. The party was considered illegal in Austria.

**Richard** · 05-15-2015, 12:32 PM

Joe, I understand your point and I understand the book was published with the full sanction and approval of the party. I also understand that the members in Austria (such as all three of my uncles who were members years before the Anschluss) were illegal under Austrian law and are referred to as such in this book.

I don't think I was out of line indicating the book (though officially sanctioned and with lots of ancillary information on the party) had a timeline of events and perhaps you are reading too much into my sentence of my previous post. I in no way intended to refer to the publication as a mere timeline of events. I know it is an officially sanctioned copy with additional information (as the title Data of the History of the NSDAP indicates) but also with a timeline of the history of the party.

My point is that at no time, and in no publication that I have ever seen was the struggle to be legitimized and come to power, either in Germany when the party was outlawed after the Putsch or in Austria in the pre-Anschluss days, referred to as an illegal struggle. That's the part of the document with which I have an issue. Though they might relish the fact that they were thumbing their nose at the Austrian authorities by being members when it was outlawed, I've never seen anything (other than this document) where the struggle to become legitimized and come into power, was ever referred to as illegal.
Richard V

Announcement

Interesting Document

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread