Jump to content
Gentleman's Military Interest Club

Recommended Posts

The question about the identity of a specific pin came up in another thread. The reference books available present different facts, a discussion here might help us to clear out those differences.

The following is based purely on my own assumptions and I expect to be corrected, should these not be accepted.

The various organizations in the TR had member-pins. The uniformed military branches had no need for those, their identities were all too obvious. On civilian clothes however, a ?Zivil-Nadel? was authorized. The concept ?Wehrmachtgefolge? is trickier though. According to ?Feltgrau.com?, all armed forces, auxiliaries and in the direct employment, assistance or aid of Wehrmacht, but not considered part of the Heer, Marine, LW or W-SS. Include those from groups as RAD, NSKK, OT, etc. This will indicate all civilian employees also counted as WG. The common member-pin for all these catagories was the pin for ?Wehrmachtgefolge?. The major problem with the reference books, is the mixup of the two concepts Zivil-Nadel and Zivil-Angestellte.

A sales-catalogue from Beco has been published on the WAF and one page from it will illustrate this topic. There are two Zivilabz. and two Abz. F?r Zivilangestellte illustrated. The left eagle is supposed to be authorized for Wehrmacht and Marine, which should read Heer and Marine. LW had an eagle of its own and Wehrmacht is the collective word for the three armed forces (four after this date, when W-SS was created). Perhaps I?m picky, but still ;). The right eagle is the LW Zivilabz. in gold, but according to H?sken, this design is also associated with Dienstnadel f?r Luftnachrichtenhelferinnen in silver. That would explain the reference from Scott, having seen those ladies with the pin on their ties. H?sken also claims the design of the left eagle is connected to Reichwehr and the Wehrmacht and that there also was one design credited to Wehrmacht, where the eagle is stubbier and without cutouts between the legs and feathers. Brinkmann has suggested that if in silver, it?s for Heer and in gold for Marine. Again H?sken presents another wiew, the silver is for Wehrmacht (except LW) and the gold version is ?Anstecksnadel der Offiziersbeuerber? (Heer). That would suggest that the silver version was a pin for civil wear but not the gold. Some logical gap here, but I might be reading it incorrectly.

The other two are more controvercial. The left eagle (often incorrectly referred to as ?Zivilabz. d. Polizei?) is the Abz. f?r Zivilangestellte (Heer, Kriegsmarine and W-SS) in silver. When in gold, it?s no longer a badge, but rather a decoration i.e. ?Ehrenzeichen f?r treue Arbeit (25 j?hrige Dienstzeit) f?r Angestellte und Arbeiter bei Heer und Kriegsmarine. The right eagle represents the same criterias, but for LW (all according to H?sken). He also illustrates a different design of the silver version with the same wording. Who knows, perhaps this is a DLV Zivil-Nadel, considering its similarity to their cap insignia ;).

All this boils down to two interesting questions, a/ is there a way to differentiate the Wehrmachtgefolge-pin from the Angestellte-pin and b/ were any of the groups associated with these two pins also issued a pin for wear on civilian clothes?

If the Feldgrau-scenario is correct, the WG-pin included all groups, both para-military (i.g. NSKK) and civilian employees (i.g. clerks), why adapt a specific version for Angestellte? One possible answer could be that the WG-pin was replaced by the Angestellte-pin, but that would place the non-civilian groups in the employee-category, which seems far fetched. If a different scenario is applied i.g. one of these two actually was a member-pin and the other was for wear on civilian clothes, it will be the same non-logical outcome.

After giving this some thought, I believe the WG-pin included all personnel with military connections and the Angest?llte-pin was issued solely to strict civilian employees. I haven?t seen any reference that a pin for wear on civilian clothes was ever issued to these two categories. The point I?m trying to make, is that the only groups eligible for a ?Zivil-Nadel? were the three branches within the Wehrmacht. The other uniformed units (NSKK, RAD etc.) are still open for consideration though.

Hopefully this is comprehensible.

Cheers

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very interesting article Peter, although not an area that I've given that much thought to, you've raised some very good points. Lets see if anyone else has any thoughts on this.

Cheers

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly a complicated issue which you have given a lot of though to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, I appreciate all the thought you have put into this! Wish I could be of help. I have no idea! I never even got around to collecting any of the pins in question, yet.

In wear photos may be of some help if they can be located.

Looking forward to your findings.

--dj--Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. I?ve found some additional info in Bender?s ?The Luftwaffe? and that surely didn?t make matters easier. For interested parties, please check the scan and compare it with my first post.

At first I thought a distinction between the different formations would help us establish fairly plausible assumptions regarding the actual pins. This turned out to be more complicated than I thought. The concept ?Wehrmachtgefolge? ought to be simple (all personel outside the four branches WH, WM, LW and W-SS), but to differentiate the others and place them correctly in one of the other four categories (armed forces, aux.forces, employees and workers) is not that easy and raises several questions.I suppose the concept ?armed forces? is possibly adopted for allied troops (i.g. Hungarian or Rumanian), but that?s just a wild guess in my attempt to find logic. The ?auxiliary forces? is a tougher nut to crack. Formations within this category ought to be i.g. Heimatflak and possibly also HJ Flakhelfer and Luftwaffenhelfer. The two final groups (employees and workers) is a real challenge and for the moment I won?t even try to elaborate. Finally here?s a little something to illustrate the complexity.

I just got off the phone with an old acquintence of mine. She was drafted into the RAD in 1943 and sent to a training camp with 60 other young ladies. One day she and two other girls were picked out and sent to a LW facility for training as a telegraph operator, also as ?Flugmelder? and a few other tasks. She stayed in the LW for the rest of the war. One would think she ended up in the ?Luftwaffen-Helferinnenschaft? and issued the uniform associated with this formation. Instead she was employed by the LW, keeping her RAD-rank and kept on wearing her RAD-uniform. BUT, in order to step up one level in regards of wages, she was given the administrative rank ?Sonderf?hrerinn?!! How about that ;)

cheers

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a mine field :speechless:

Keep up the good (but confusing :D ) work Peter.

Cheers

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mind keeps strolling back to this question, not an insightfull thought coming :) but here goes. Could it be that with the plethora of organizations and the periodic changing of titles for many of these organizations they simply confused the situation? Left hand did not always know what the right hand was about?

:anmatcat: Not helpfull, I know.

--dj--Joe

:D had to move the cat.

Edited by --dj--Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, quite possible. We also shouldn't forget a lot of info (or assumptions) have surfaced in recent years and that there are still grey areas. I remember 20 years ago, when I visited a guy in S:t Pete, he showed me a pin that I remember having seen in H?sken's book, described as "unknown". When I asked about the identity, referring to H?sken's comment, he responded: "That's my mother's pin, she was a Luftwaffehelferinn". The image is on p.245 in the 1982 edition, but now it's common knowledge ;)

cheers

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For interested parties, the concept Wehrmachtgefolge is comprehensibly described in "Uniforms & Traditions of the Luftwaffe" by Angolia/Schlicht vol.1, page 143.

cheers

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×