Medal entitlements

rainy · Post by **rainy** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:45 pm

I assume the German Army had medals issued according to the location battles where fought. Is there an illustrated list of such medals and ribbons ?

Tom Houlihan · Post by **Tom Houlihan** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 9:47 pm

Right off the top of my head, I know there's a Wehrmacht Awards forum/website that illustrates most if not all of them. I can't give you the URL right now, but a quick google should find it.

Doktor Krollspell · Post by **Doktor Krollspell** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:06 pm

Hello Rainy and Tom!

That would be the http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com website...

Regards,

Krollspell

Paddy Keating · Post by **Paddy Keating** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:14 pm

Narvik Armshield
Kreta Cuff Title
Kreta Shield (non-portable)
Winter War 1941/42 Medal (Russia)
Italo-German Medal for North Africa
Crimea Armshield
Demjansk Armshield
Cholm Armshield
Kuban Armshield
Afrika Cuff Title
Lorient Shield
Dunkirk Shield (Worn on fieldcap)
Metz Cuff Title
Kurland Cuff Title
Lappland Shield

Others:

Blue Division Medal (Spain) for Russia
West Wall Medal

"Flower Wars" Medals:

Sudetenland Medal 1938
Prague Clasp for above
Anschluss Medal
Memelland Medal

Proposed but not produced:

Balkan Shield
Warsaw Shield
Stalingrad Shield
Memel Shield

Related Insignia:

Stalingrad Tradition Badge/Hoch und Deutschmeister Cross

There were also some locally produced unofficial medals like the Eismeerfront medallion.

Hope this helps.

PK

Paddy Keating · Post by **Paddy Keating** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:59 am

It was produced and awarded in the besieged port of Dunkirk, which was surrendered by Admiral Frisius after the general surrender of German forces in May 1945, much to the chagrin of Montgomery and other Allied leaders. The shield was worn on the side of recipients' fieldcaps.

In a sense, I shouldn't have included it on my list because it was more in the nature of an award, given to members of the small battle units that carried out raids - stoßtruppunternehmen - against Allied lines during the siege. There was an award document and the award was noted in paybooks. Not 200m from where I live is an original example, taken by a Free French soldier, and a paybook from a different source with the entry for the award.

One citation shows two awards to the same man for two actions. The award was described as the Stoßtruppenabzeichen or 'Shock Troops Badge' but is popularly known as the Duenkirchenschild. The town was spelt thereon as 'Duenkirchen', without the umlaut.

PK

Andy H · Post by **Andy H** » Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:11 pm

much to the chagrin of Montgomery and other Allied leaders

Why?

It seems somewhat insignificant given the greater picture, and its not as if the Allies tried that hard to capture the town.

Regards

Paddy Keating · Post by **Paddy Keating** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:05 am

My dear whateveryourrealnameis, it's well-known that Monty was irked by Frisius' recalcitrance. The Atlantic Wall fortress redoubts like Dunkirk, Lorient and others were an embarassment to the Allied commanders.

Not only did Vice-Admiral Frisius decline to surrender after the Lüneburg Heath surrender on 4.5.1945 but he held out until it was clarified to him that the Rheims surrender included Dunkirk. In fact, he and his men never surrendered. They were ordered to lay down their arms. Here, for those of you interested in Dunkirk in 1944/45, here are some interesting links:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stor ... 5182.shtml

http://www.geocities.com/nasenoviny/Dun ... 44_45.html

There were at least three forms of award document for unofficial badges from Dunkirk. These mention the Stoßtruppenabzeichen, the Kampfschulabzeichen and the V.B.-Abzeichen. Unless there were other types of badge awarded that have yet to come to light, these documents presumably all relate to the so-called Dunkirk Shield. Paybook entries describe it as a mützenabzeichen, which supports eyewitness accounts of seeing men with the badge on their fieldcaps.

PK

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:12 am

Hi Guys,

We very recently had a thread on Dunkirk in 1944-45.

Dunkirk and the Atlantic fortresses were a minor embarrassment but failed to play the strategic role intended for them, which was to cripple any Allied build-up against Germany by hanging on to French docks.

Where the Allies needed to they took French ports. However, they didn't need all of them and didn't waste front line resources on besieging the remaiunder. The Atlantic Fortresses were sealed off by ad hoc French FFI units much inferior to their garrisons.

Dunkirk was largely sealed off by the understrength Czechoslovak Brigade, whose only source of reinforcement was deserters from Czech and Slovak labour units in German service in Italy. It was therefore unusable on sustained operations in the front line.

In WWI the Germans used to describe the normally passive Allied Salonika beachead as the largest prison camp they had to guard. The Allies could reasonably have described Dunkirk and the Atlantic Fortresses in a similar way. The best part of 100,000 uniformed Germans sat out the war in them to almost no purpose.

This is not to decry the endurance of the German garrisons into 1945, which was to their credit. However, with the exception of the two southernmost Atlantic Fortresses, which the French rather pointlessly stormed in the last days of the war, they were never assaulted and therefore were never put to the test.

Frisius did well enough, but his tardy concession was mere grandstanding at a stage when the fighting was over, he was at no personal risk and surrender, under whatever guise, was inevitable. It was the sort of pointless posturing that can get a military a bad name. History has several surrenderers requesting that their opponent fire a symbolic shot so that they can claim to have resisted, or requesting in advance that they be given their sword back to salve their pride, or unilaterally crossing out bits of surrender documents before signing. It changes nothing and does none of them any credit.

Cheers,

Sid.

Paddy Keating · Post by **Paddy Keating** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:53 am

You have your opinions about Dunkirk and you're welcome to them. I can't be bothered debating the matter with you. The sun is shining and I am going out to ride my motorbike around. Members can do their own research if they're interested and can then form their own conclusions.

PK

rainy · Post by **rainy** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:11 am

At 85 years of age it is amusing to read comments by people who obviously have no first hand knowledge of events.
Paddy your statement that you can't be bothered to debate is acknowledgement that you either don't have sufficient facts or you are afraid that you are in the wrong.

Paddy Keating · Post by **Paddy Keating** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:25 pm

Ron,

You're wrong. I am quite well read on the subject of Dunkirk in 1944 and 1945 and I have also spoken with people who were there, including FFL and German veterans, as well as some French civilians. I just get a bit tired of dealing with fatuous posts by people on some kind of anti-German agenda. I read Sid's posts in the other thread and I have debated numerous issues with him and his fellow travellers on this website and I just can't be arsed anymore. At the age of 85, you should be able to relate to that, if indeed you really are an octogenarian Aussie and not someone faking it to cause trouble.

PK

Paddy Keating · Post by **Paddy Keating** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:47 pm

By the way, Rainy, you haven't bothered to thank anyone for taking the trouble to try to answer your query. Being octogenarian and living in Brisbane doesn't excuse you from good manners, me old woodentop.

PK

sid guttridge · Post by **sid guttridge** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:18 pm

Hi Paddy,

Good manners should apply to all. My last post was informed and polite, but that did not stop you calling it "fatuous".

If you want to engage with my post, that is fine. If you want to ignore my post, that is also fine. However, to describe it as "fatuous" without making any attempt to justify it does rather lay you open to the charges Rainy brought, be he 85 or 8, of good manners or ill.

And please explain to me what is "anti-German" about wanting the German Army to get the due recognition it is currently denied by the popular over fixation on the Waffen-SS? The German Army was the German people in arms. For all its pretensions, the so-called "classic" Waffen-SS was basically just the Nazi Party in arms.

And what is anti-German about writing, "This is not to decry the endurance of the German garrisons into 1945, which was to their credit." or "Frisius did well enough....."? Not all Germans performed military miracles all the time and even when they did they were not necessarily of any wider significance. Pointing this out is not "anti-German", it is just pro-the-facts.

Cheers,

Sid.

rainy · Post by **rainy** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:41 pm

Paddy you are inclined to make assumptions. Thanks went to people directly which I considered more appropriate.
Sid has corrected you on your misunderstanding of his comments.

You would be wise to consider before rushing into print.

Andy H · Post by **Andy H** » Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:41 pm

My dear whateveryourrealnameis, it's well-known that Monty was irked by Frisius' recalcitrance. The Atlantic Wall fortress redoubts like Dunkirk, Lorient and others were an embarassment to the Allied commanders.

You know who I am, so not sure why you needed that opening, but anyway Prosper or Paddy

As far as I've read, the Allied commands were frustrated and irked by the continuing resistance of the fortress ports, but I haven't come across the word embarassment.

me old woodentop

Is Rainy a ex-Guardsmen?

Regards