Jump to content

Recommended Posts

First purchase of the year.

Sadly, the photo has been cut out of the Wehrpass but as the price of the set was actually less than I've paid for another Zugwache Wound Badge Doc on its own, I wasn't complaining.

Here's the Wound Badge doc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was wounded in January 1944 and hospitalised from 18 January to 13 February 1944. The handwritten entry is a bit small and hard to read, but I think I can make out " Bei Minensprengung Verletzung xxx u. xxxxx . Kriegslazarett II/605. I believe this hospital was located in Hungary (Budapest).

So, I guess his train was probably blown up when it ran over explosive charges laid by Partisans.

Interesting that his death is recorded at 6 October 1945, after the war ended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is "verletzung der u. XXX"

I am wondering if this was not a controlled detonation carried out by the Germans and he was injured as opposed to wounded? For some reason I have always thought Verwundung was a wound, and Verletzung an Injury?

Best

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about that but it was the "Minen" part which suggested to me enemy action. I can't imagine why a train guard would be involved in using demolition material - that would be the job of the pioniers. Even then, would they use "Mines" to clear an obstactle, surely just dynamite.

On the other hand, part of the whole raison d'être for the Zugwache was defending trains against Partisan attacks, which often involved blowing up the tracks with mines as the trains passed over them.

Not sure about the Verletzung issue, whether it was a cut and dried rule or whether it was a matter of interpretation by the clerk filling in the book. Maybe indirectly injured if the train crashed after a mine explosion, rather than wounded by shrapnel ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about the Verletzung issue, whether it was a cut and dried rule or whether it was a matter of interpretation by the clerk filling in the book. Maybe indirectly injured if the train crashed after a mine explosion, rather than wounded by shrapnel ?

Thats possible, as I said, it is just a thought from the dusty backrooms of my memory. May also just be how the clerk entered it in the book.

best

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Bei Minensprengung Verletzung des rechten Fußes. > injury of the right foot

Chris,

"Verletzung" could be both, civilian and military. "Er erlitt bei einem Verkehrsunfall eine schwere Verletzung" > serious injury

"Verwundung" is more military, but a "Wunde" (wound) is civilian and military.

See in Post 5 on page 34, Im Kriege: Verwundungen und ...

"Er hat sich verletzt und hat jetzt eine Wunde am Fuß"

"Er wurde verwundet und hat jetzt eine Wunde am Fuß."

There is a date difference, 17. Januar and 18. Januar, but that is not unusual.

Is there no other entry about his destination after May 1945?

Uwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Uwe !

Bad enough trying to decipher Sütterlin without having to take in to account handwriting of the person using it . Of course once someone points out what it is - it seems very clear !

As to the use of Verletzung rather than Verwundung, I think it probably depended on the actual form of the injury. By definition, a "Wound" involves the skin being punctured or torn or internal damage caused by blunt force trauma. An Injury is something lesser, possibly a broken leg, ankle etc.

The Wound Badge could only be awarded if the damage was directly caused by enemy action. In the kind of scenario Chris suggested where maybe the Germans were using a controlled explosion perhaps to clear a blockage on the railway line, any injury would be considered an accident, and the rules clearly stated "Illness and accidents , even if in the face of the enemy, but without intervention of enemy fire, are not eligible for the award".

So my guess is still that his injury was caused by an explosion likely due to the enemy having planted explosives and blown up the railway line when his train was passing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In the kind of scenario Chris suggested where maybe the Germans were using a controlled explosion perhaps to clear a blockage on the railway line, any injury would be considered an accident, and the rules clearly stated "Illness and accidents , even if in the face of the enemy, but without intervention of enemy fire, are not eligible for the award"

Not correct. Please see here:

"Zusätze des Oberkommando des Heeres

...

IV. Durchführung der Verleihung

...

2. Verwundung beim Umgang mit Minen:

Die Voraussetzungen für die Verleihung des VA. sind als gegeben anzusehen, wenn Soldaten beim Umgang mit eigenen oder feindlichen Minen - Aufnehmen und Entschärfen eigener oder feindlicher Minen oder Blindgänger bzw. Legen oder Verlegen eigener oder fendlicher Minen gegen den Feind - ohne eigenes Verschulden verwundet worden sind.

...

OKH., 15.4.43"

The conditions for the award of the badge are given, when soldiers without own fault were wounded when dealing with their own or enemy mines.

Uwe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Uwe. I didn't have that OKH Bulletin. For some reason I have the one on 11 March about the Wound Badge and then 25 May but not this one from 15 April.

Still, I think it is unlikely that somehow a Zugwache soldier would be involved in clearing German mines, so I still think that enemy action is the most likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Blog Comments

    • Brian, Thanks for initiating this discussion. For me, it’s a combination of the thrill of the chase, the history behind the item, and the aesthetics, although this latter factor may seem a bit strange to some. To illustrate this, the very first thing I collected as a kid in the 1950’s was a Belgian WW1 medal, for service in 1914-18, which is bell shaped, with a very striking profile of a very dignified soldier, wearing an Adrian helmet which bears a laurel wreath. It was the image that
    • Thank you for sharing your story, it was most interesting and greatly appreciated, it makes this blog well worth the time to post. Regards Brian  
    • Hello I started collecting when I found my first Mauser cartridges in a field next to my parents' house next to Armentières. I was eight years old.  Then shrapnel, schrapnell balls, darts... That's how I became a historian. When I was 18, we used to walk through the fields with a metal detector to find our happiness. It was my time in the army as a research-writer in a research centre that made me love the orders of chivalry. I've been collecting them for 24 years now. Christophe
    • Thank you for your most interesting comment. The thrill of the chase didn't interest me in the beginning but over time it started to overshadow the act of simply adding yet another medal or group to the collection. Regards Brian  
    • I know the way I got into collecting is like so many other people; through a sibling. I also know that my love of history is barely unique in a place like this. So I know I have a shared background with many people. A less shared area - perhaps - is that I've always loved the thrill of the chase. When I decide I want, say, a 1914 trio with an original bar, to a cavalry unit, the utter thrill of getting out there and, (a) finding groups that fit the criteria and, (b) comparing them re: ranks, uni
×
×
  • Create New...