Soviet Red Banner #7 & #8 - yes or no?

[Christian Zulus]

ORBs #X: Regulations vs. reality

Gentlemen,

I experienced, that almost NO recipient of multiple ORB got his awards according to the official regulations - ORB, ORB #2, ORB #3, etc.

Specially for real GPW-battle-ORBs this practice might be somehow a "rule", maybe not so for "Long-Service-ORBs" . The numbered ORBs, I have in my modest collection - ORB #2 (19.404, T3/V4 & ORB #3 (8.426, T4) - are long service awards (#2 for sure "20-years-of-service", belongs to the group of airforce Major Baranovsky and the single #3 has to be for 99% a long service award).

If you look at my thread showing Maj. General Skuba, who received 4 ORBs http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=11895 , you will see at the photograph: ORB - ORB - ORB #3 - ORB.

Or if you have a look at Dave's ("NavyFCO") fantastic collector's website, you will find at his large ORB-section not one ORB-group with all ORBs according to the regulations.

I want to point at the obvious fact, that the Soviet adminstration was - even or specially during the GPW - rather "sloppy" working according to the regulations of the Supreme Soviet. Maybe they thought: An ORB is an ORB, so what matters the number. Or maybe there was supply shortfall of numberd ORBs?

Maybe we could bring some light into the process, how the system - Mint & Supreme Soviet & Military Staffs - worked. Why are there exact regulations for conferring orders, if the staffs, the adminstration and the Mint don't care about them? Marshall Kozhedub hat the legal right to receive an ORB #7, but he got at the end an ordinary ORB with s/n. XXX.XXX. Why was it sooooo difficult, if someone got a "wrong" order, to get it exchanged for the right one - Glory-Cavaliers had to wait for decades to get there 2nd Glory 2cl exchanged to the deserved Glory 1cl. Sloppy adminstration in terms of orders & medals in the Soviet Union ?

Best regards

Christian Zulus

[Ed_Haynes]

Wow, Christian. A lot to ponder here.

Let me throw into the soup some images from the Central Musuem of the Armed Forces in Moscow, taken last summer. Someplace, I have incomplete (sorry ) notes, but right now the names don't matter, the groups do.

Group 1:

1-2-3

(Many of these have been posted elsewhere, sorry, but relevant here, I think.)

[Ed_Haynes]

Group 2:

1-2-3

[Ed_Haynes]

Group 3:

1-blank-3

[Ed_Haynes]

Group 4:

1-blank-blank-3 (screwback?!)

(!!!!!!!!!!!)

Edited October 22, 2006 by Ed_Haynes

[Ed_Haynes]

Group 4:

1-2-3-4

(We must assume the groups are "kosher", but at this museum -- except for Zhukov's -- I'm fairly confident.)

[Christian Zulus]

Dear Ed,

many thanks for your scans .

So, in picture 4 we can see, that the Soviets had been even sloppy in mounting the ORBs in the right way .

Best regards

Christian

[Guest RedThreat]

Christian:

I am glad you found information helpful I couldn't find a photo of Pstigo with 8 RB.

Mistakes were made during award process. Y. Veremeev does a great job explaining the system in his article ( It is in Russian ) http://www.armor.yurteh.net/army/hist/sov-nagrady.shtml He describes the irresponsible behavior of bureaucracy. For example, one typist was caught wrapping salted herring in award citations.

I would like to share my thoughts on why second and following RB had numbers on the shield and why RB was often given without the right number. Before the revolution, one couldn't be awarded the Russian order twice. If a recipient was previously decorated by the order, he received the higher class of this order. RB was created right after the revolution. For men who wrote RB statutes, it was impossible to award somebody with the same order twice. At the same time, RB of a higher class couldn't be instituted because a class in any shape was a counterrevolutionary, bourgeois concept in 1918 Russia. By putting a little number at the bottom of the order, a problem was solved. Essentially, RB of a higher class was created but class was implicit. Later, men in charge realized there is no reason why someone can't be decorated with the same order twice. Lenin and RS could be awarded multiple times without little numbers. Since class of RB was implicit, neither recipients nor their superiors cared about a number on a shield. After all, it is still RB. If you have 7, they all are clearly visible on your uniform. Soldiers didn't think like collectors. To them, a variation of their order was not important. Glory is a slightly different story. A soldier was eager to replace his silver Glory 3 for a solid gold 1st class. Besides, he got bragging rights and material benefits of a full Glory cavalier. Once again, they are just my 2 cents.

Simon

[JimZ]

My apologies too for the bout of humour earlier.... of course the idea really was...how far would fakers take it if they were allowed. Which is all the more reason why there should be some sort of consensus based on fact as to what the highest ORB number is?

Jim

[Christian Zulus]

Wrapping salted herring in award citations

Dear Simon,

many thanks for your reply .

Could you translate some crucial points of your source for us from russian to english ?

I love salted herring, but would never wrap them in award citations .

Your aspect - ORB = ORB and the receipients didn't care about the number (7 ORBs = 7 ORBs) - might be right.

But what about comrade Kozhedub? He got 6 correct ORBs, but the 7th was without the number?

Best regards

Christian

Christian:

I am glad you found information helpful I couldn't find a photo of Pstigo with 8 RB.

Mistakes were made during award process. Y. Veremeev does a great job explaining the system in his article ( It is in Russian ) http://www.armor.yurteh.net/army/hist/sov-nagrady.shtml He describes the irresponsible behavior of bureaucracy. For example, one typist was caught wrapping salted herring in award citations.

I would like to share my thoughts on why second and following RB had numbers on the shield and why RB was often given without the right number. Before the revolution, one couldn't be awarded the Russian order twice. If a recipient was previously decorated by the order, he received the higher class of this order. RB was created right after the revolution. For men who wrote RB statutes, it was impossible to award somebody with the same order twice. At the same time, RB of a higher class couldn't be instituted because a class in any shape was a counterrevolutionary, bourgeois concept in 1918 Russia. By putting a little number at the bottom of the order, a problem was solved. Essentially, RB of a higher class was created but class was implicit. Later, men in charge realized there is no reason why someone can't be decorated with the same order twice. Lenin and RS could be awarded multiple times without little numbers. Since class of RB was implicit, neither recipients nor their superiors cared about a number on a shield. After all, it is still RB. If you have 7, they all are clearly visible on your uniform. Soldiers didn't think like collectors. To them, a variation of their order was not important. Glory is a slightly different story. A soldier was eager to replace his silver Glory 3 for a solid gold 1st class. Besides, he got bragging rights and material benefits of a full Glory cavalier. Once again, they are just my 2 cents.

Simon

[Guest RedThreat]

Christian:

The article describes the process by which servicemen were decorated during GPW. Before the war, each awardee got his order in Kremlin from Kalinin's and in exceptional cases Stalin's hands. Since such system was not feasible at war time, Supreme Soviet delegated front, army, ... , regiment commanders the authority to decorate their subordinates in the name of Supreme Soviet. After the commander signed an award document and an awardee got his order, documents had to be sent to Presidium of Surpreme Soviet for confirmation. These documents didn't always make it to P. of S. Soviet. Reasons include air raids, mail mistakes, laziness of typists who tossed citations into trash, etc. Some servicemen got their orders, wore them proudly but when they applied for veteran benefits after the war, they were told that Supreme Soviet never issued a decree for their decorations and therefore they are wearing orders which they didn't earn. Supreme Soviet changed "order giving" power of commanders several times during the war. By Supreme S. resolution dated 3.1.43, the following commanders had a right to award the following decorations:

medal CM medal FV o.RS o.GPW1,2 o.AN o.Suvorov3 o.RB

Front Commander + + + + + + +

Army C. + + + + + +

Corps C. + + + +

Div., Brigade C. + + +

Regiment C. + +

The chart got out of whack when posted. The leftmost + is supposed to match medal CM. The next + matches medal FV. Each following + corresponds to the next order at the top row. The exception is in the row for Army C. There is supposed to be a gap in o.Suvorov3 column. Army C. could award o.AN and o.RB.

When Glory was instituted, Front and Army c. could give out Glory 2 and 3. Corps and Div. c. could award Glory 3.

This chart can be used as an argument in "unofficial hierarchy" debate. RB ranks higher than Suvorov but only Front C. could award Suvorov and RB while Army C. had power to give only RB. Suvorov 1 and 2 are also officially lower than RB. Yet Supreme Soviet reserved for itself the right to give Suvorov 1 and 2.

Back to Kozhedub's RB case. My claim that nobody cared about numbers on RB was perhaps too strong. It is more accurate to say that an effort was made to give RB with the right number on a shield, but it was acceptable to break the rule. I found the online version of Durov's book mentioned by Christophe. Durov states that RB 7 s/n 1-10 were manufactured in Leningrad mint in 1954. The lowest known s/n is 1, highest is 8. We can only guess why Kozhedub didn't get RB 7.

Simon

Edited October 26, 2006 by RedThreat

[Guest RedThreat]

Marshal Pstigo and Gen. Golubev

[attachmentid=58437]

[attachmentid=58436]

[Christian Zulus]

Two ORB #7 on authentic photographs!

Dear Simon,

many thanks for your excerpt of the article about confering orders & medals, which corresponds exactly with the regulations of the different orders, i.e., Suvorov 3cl by front commanders, but ORB by army commanders.

That is also an argument for the "inofficial hierarchy" of awards .

Let us assume, that the Lenigrad Mint strucked and manufactured in the first batch only 10 ORBs #7, as stated in Durov's book. Maybe comrade Kozhedub should have been awarded with ORB #7 s/n. 11. Bad luck for him, because the mint run out of ORBs #7. So he receiveded an ordinary ORB. Just a theory .

Many thanks for sharing two photographs of genuine ORB #7 with us .

Would it be possible, to blow up the photographs, to have a closer look at the ORBs?

Best regards

Christian

[Christian Zulus]

Remarks to the photographs

Gentlemen,

when you take a closer look at the 7 ORBs of comrade Golubev (1st photograph), then you will make out, that the fifth ORB is NOT a ORB #5, but a blank ORB, followed by ORB #6 & ORB #7.

The photograph of Pstygo is obviously from the late 1970s. I can make out 7 ORBs and from the second ORB on all with shields for the numbers. After the ORB #7 there is a lot of shadow at the photograph. Maybe there might be the ORB #8 in the shadow .

Does anyone know, when comrade Pstygo received his ORB #8?

Best regards

Christian Zulus

[Guest RedThreat]

Christian:

You are welcome

I blew these images on my computer and got nothing but large white blobs.

Let us assume, that the Lenigrad Mint strucked and manufactured in the first batch only 10 ORBs #7, as stated in Durov's book. Maybe comrade Kozhedub should have been awarded with ORB #7 s/n. 11. Bad luck for him, because the mint run out of ORBs #7. So he receiveded an ordinary ORB. Just a theory .

It's possible.

when you take a closer look at the 7 ORBs of comrade Golubev (1st photograph), then you will make out, that the fifth ORB is NOT a ORB #5, but a blank ORB, followed by ORB #6 & ORB #7.

Yep. It's another example of administration sloppiness in regard to RB shield numbers.

The photograph of Pstygo is obviously from the late 1970s. I can make out 7 ORBs and from the second ORB on all with shields for the numbers. After the ORB #7 there is a lot of shadow at the photograph. Maybe there might be the ORB #8 in the shadow .

The photo was taken in or after 1988. That year Soviet Army personnel began to wear decorations on suspension horizontally.

Simon

[Christian Zulus]

Year Soviet Army personnel began to wear decorations on suspension horizontally?

Dear Simon,

so Pstygo's ORB #8 might be in the shadow .

Pstygo's photograph might be earlier, than 1988.

In Dietrich Herfurth's first book about Soviet Military Awards, published in the GDR in 1987, you find on page 38 a nice photograph of Marshal Kulikov wearing his decorations on suspension horizontally and also wearing his HSU, he received in 1981. So Kulikov's photograph has to be shot between 1981 and 1987.

On page 156 of Herfurth's old book you will find the regulations for wearing decoartions at the uniform and they are all horizontally.

In the GDR-book: "Kleines Lexikon SOWJET-STREITKR?FTE" ("Small Encyclopadia of the Soviet Forces") from the year 1986 you will find on page 297 all uniforms with decorations on suspension horizontally.

So the change in the regulations for wearing decorations in the Soviet Union has took part 1986 or before 1986.

Do you have some sources about that topic, which would be helpful for the classification of photographs?

Best regards

Christian

[Gerd Becker]

Simon,

excellent information, thanks a million.

Btw, if you click on reply with quote, you can see, how the chart was supposed to be.

best,

Gerd

[Christian Zulus]

Evidence for the existence of ORB #7 & #8

Gentlemen,

the two photographs, Simon posted at this thread, are for my opinion hard facts for the existence of ORBs #6+. So the statement at the "other" Soviet awards website, that no ORBs higher than #6 had been issued, might be wrong. As far as I can remember Prof. Eugene Rabkin was a strong supporter of the theory, that all ORB #7 & #8 are fakes, because they were never issued. O.K., it might be, that all of these ORBs at the market are fakes, but the photographs show, that they had been confered.

Gentlemen, what is your point of view?

Best regards

Christian Zulus

[Christophe]

The pics are so small ... I'm sure someone can post better pics of them. It would help...

Cheers.

Ch.

[Christian Zulus]

Would be great .

Best regards

Christian

The pics are so small ... I'm sure someone can post better pics of them. It would help...

Cheers.

Ch.

[Guest RedThreat]

Year Soviet Army personnel began to wear decorations on suspension horizontally?

Dear Simon,

so Pstygo's ORB #8 might be in the shadow .

Pstygo's photograph might be earlier, than 1988.

In Dietrich Herfurth's first book about Soviet Military Awards, published in the GDR in 1987, you find on page 38 a nice photograph of Marshal Kulikov wearing his decorations on suspension horizontally and also wearing his HSU, he received in 1981. So Kulikov's photograph has to be shot between 1981 and 1987.

On page 156 of Herfurth's old book you will find the regulations for wearing decoartions at the uniform and they are all horizontally.

In the GDR-book: "Kleines Lexikon SOWJET-STREITKR?FTE" ("Small Encyclopadia of the Soviet Forces") from the year 1986 you will find on page 297 all uniforms with decorations on suspension horizontally.

So the change in the regulations for wearing decorations in the Soviet Union has took part 1986 or before 1986.

Do you have some sources about that topic, which would be helpful for the classification of photographs?

Best regards

Christian

Christian:

I was using Y. Veremeev's article that describes the last Soviet Army uniform regulations. The author quoted official documents and is Soviet Army retired Lt. Colonel who was on active service in 1980's. If you found books published before 1988 where officers wear suspended decorations horizontally, there must be mistake in the article.

To determine whether for RB 7, 8 to be or not to be, I found online version of V. Durov's book which Christophe owns. I have conflicting thoughts on that work. On one hand, V. Durov is a professional falerist, a leading expert at State Historical Museum. It's hard to find anyone more authoritative than he is on this subject. In the book, he provides charts of who and when was awarded RB 5,6,7. But I found a typo. First, he writes that RB 7 were manufactured in Leningrad mint in 1954. Then, in the chart of RB 7 recipients, he shows 1953 as the date RB 7 s/n 6 was awarded. Igor sells the book at his website. If you look there, you can see several pages of it including RB 6 recipients chart. Also, I can always send you a link where you can download it.

Simon,

excellent information, thanks a million.

Btw, if you click on reply with quote, you can see, how the chart was supposed to be.

best,

Gerd

You are welcome, Gerd.

Simon

Edited October 28, 2006 by RedThreat

[Christian Zulus]

ORB #7 & #8: Yes or no?

Gentlemen,

my question again:

Do you think, that ORBs #6+ existed - or not?

We have seen two intersting photographs of bearers and some reference in literature.

Best regards

Christian Zulus

Evidence for the existence of ORB #7 & #8

Gentlemen,

the two photographs, Simon posted at this thread, are for my opinion hard facts for the existence of ORBs #6+. So the statement at the "other" Soviet awards website, that no ORBs higher than #6 had been issued, might be wrong. As far as I can remember Prof. Eugene Rabkin was a strong supporter of the theory, that all ORB #7 & #8 are fakes, because they were never issued. O.K., it might be, that all of these ORBs at the market are fakes, but the photographs show, that they had been confered.

Gentlemen, what is your point of view?

Best regards

Christian Zulus

[Christian Zulus]

Discussion about that subject at the "other" Soviet awards forum from the year 2002 to 2004

Gentlemen,

I just checked my old postings at the "other" Soviet awards forum and the discussion about the subject "RB #6+ - yes or no?" and want to sum up the different viewpoints in the year 2002 till 2004. All postings can be found in this thread: http://www.soviet-awards.com/forum/showthr...?t=16&pp=10 .

Paul McDaniel (phoned by Eugene Rabkin) stated, that he heared from a relyable source in Russia, that RB #7, #8, etc. have never been manufactured and don't exist. After that statement the owner of the "other" Soviet forum noted at his website, that no RBs beyond #6 do exist. RB #6+: NO.

Eugene Rabkin posted, that he knows about the existence of about 20 genuine and authentic RBs #7, which had been produced by the mint and a maximum of 10 pieces might have been confered. RB #8 had been never produced and the mentioned awardee got an ordinary RB. RB #7: YES & RB #8: NO.

Dietrich Herfurth (phoned by myself) stated, that he is not shure, if the RB #8 (belonging to a collector in Germany) he photographed for the new edition of his booklet, had been an actually issued one or manufactured by the Moscow Mint (with original tools!) after the end of the Soviet Union. RB # 6+: YES, but maybe mint-made in the 1990s.

The fact is, that the Moscow Mint had have (the website is now death) a commercial site, where they sold (for rather high prices) genuine and authentic Soviet Orders & Medals fresh from the mint and in 10/10-quality to anybody, who was willing to pay the sums at the price tags. I also heard rumors, that the mint produced RBs #9 with the original tools. Here are the official websites of GOZNAK and St.-Petersburg-MD:

http://www.goznak.ru/eng/site.shtml?id=5 (engl.)

http://www.mintspb.ru/ (russ.)

The results of the discussion at this thread at GMIC showed, that at least RB #7 was documented by photographs with the bearers in uniforms.

Had been ever any RBs #6+ at the market, which had not been fakes at the first sight? If yes, I think they would not have had a PMD-authentication, because his viewpoint was, that they don't exist.

Are there any RBs #6+ at Russian museums?

Does anyone have a RB #7, RB #8 or RB #9 in his collection and regards that piece as authentic and genuine?

Gentlemen, many thanks for your support in advance - maybe we can bring some light into the mystery .

Best regards

Christian

Edited December 17, 2006 by Christian Zulus

[NavyFCO]

my question again:

Do you think, that ORBs #6+ existed - or not?

It's an interesting discussion, but unfortunately it has been discussed at length for at least the past 10 years and no one has a good answer or conclusive proof. Until someone can provide some concrete proof (e.g. the authenticated awards) that these exist, no one will know for certain.

Dave

Edited December 17, 2006 by NavyFCO

[Christian Zulus]

It's an interesting discussion, but unfortunately it has been discussed at length for at least the past 10 years and no one has a good answer or conclusive proof. Until someone can provide some concrete proof (e.g. the authenticated awards) that these exist, no one will know for certain. We can talk about it until we are blue in the face on this forum, but we will still get no further to knowing the answer.

Dave

Dear Dave,

at least we have the two photographs shown at this GMIC-thread with RBs #7 . O.K., that's not revolutionary, but might be a very first step.

We will need more photomaterial and records & documents from the mint: Did they produce these items (before dec. 1991!) or not? It should be possible to bring some light into the dark clouds of mystery, which partly cover our nice hobby (or business). For my taste, there is generally to much "mystery" in collecting Soviet Awards , but the truth shall make us free ...

Best regards

Christian