HJ Gefolgschaft 2/VI/73, flag with Bann 445 MHJ cap tally

Garry

Admin
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
8,472
Thanks Received
3,049
Location
Germany
Another post which I'm making for the flag lists.




This is a Gefolgschafts flag which I think I first saw in 2008. Toby asked for my opinion of it and the photos below are his. There is a thread over on WAF which comments on this flag (and uses a quote from me which came from an email... whatever...) but better to have a thread about the flag here where it belongs - on the best HJ forum on the net :biggrin1:


So, this would seem to be a flag with conflicting signals. The corner patch is early and shows the unit designation Gefolgschaft 2 / Unterbann VI / Bann 73. Below that there is an MHJ tally for 1/445 Hoya. When I looked into the numbers in 2008 I said:

"You have two separate identifiers:
Bann 73/Unterbann VI/Gefolgschaft 2
A separately applied blue strip of material with '1/445 Hoya' (MHJ tally) directly below the Bann 73 patch.


As I said, doesn't make sense on first inspection but... there is a link between these Banne:


Bann 73 was originally called Mittleweser but was changed to Diepholz as part of a reorganisation in 1935/6. Part of the territory previously covered by Bann 73 was transferred to the new Bann 445 Hoya which was created during the same reorganisation. This raises the possibility then that the area covered by Gefolgschaft 2 of Bann 73 now belonged to Bann 445 Hoya meaning that the flag was redundant. That in turn raises the further possibility that this flag, rather than being disposed of, was put into use by Gefolgschaft 1 of Bann 445 Hoya until its own flag was made and issued. A transitional flag if you like. The appearance of the flag with its two-colour cord and Unterbann marking definitely places it in the period where the reorganisation took place so from that perspective my scenario works too.


Whether the scenario is actually true we'll probably never know but what is true is that there was a definite link between Bann 73 and Bann 445 due to the reorganisation in 1935/36 and that the flag configuration (if you overlook the 1/445 tally) is correct for that period.


I really like the flag and nearly bought it myself when it was on offer but I just didn't have the cash free at the time. A very interesting item. "


Bann 445 Hoya first appears on the RJF Bann lists in 1938 and Bann 73 Mittelweser is still shown as Diepholz on the 1937 list so this must also have changed in 1937/8. So, this part: "Bann 73 was originally called Mittleweser but was changed to Diepholz as part of a reorganisation in 1935/6. Part of the territory previously covered by Bann 73 was transferred to the new Bann 445 Hoya which was created during the same reorganisation" should read as follows:

"Bann 73 was originally called Mittelweser but the name was changed to Diepholz as part of a reorganisation in 1936/7 (exact date unknown to me). Bann 445 Hoya was created in 1938 and some of the area previously covered by Bann 73 was transferred to the new Bann 445 Hoya".




Anyway, the thrust of my reasoning was that this odd-looking flag seems to have a logical explanation after all because of the territorial link between Bann 73 Mittelweser/Diepholz and Bann 445 Hoya. When the MHJ tally was added is a completely different matter of course. Period or post-war? I don't know.


What does everyone else think?




You don't have permission to view attachments.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
 

Attachments

    You don't have permission to view attachments.
I will get back with you on this one Garry , I need to do some of my own research before I can give an opinion .
 
To bring this thread back to life, I own this flag and can post in this thread more images. First, thank you very much for the information. I personally think the tallies were applied during the TR period as there is no other explanation for them being there.

All photos are mine but I do not mind this flag being discussed in the least, by anyone.

I just liked this flag, as did Dani (Marine HJ) so I bought it all those years ago.

I did quote from you as many quote from me over at WAF were I moderate the KM combat badges forum and KM uniforms and equipment forum. If my opinion is solicited, I do not mind them using that opinion later, either to validate a position on a particular artifact or to help sell an artifact. I am glad anybody listens to be honest.

I do agree this is the forum for HJ though, not WAF.

John

You don't have permission to view attachments.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
 

Attachments

    You don't have permission to view attachments.
Just to state the obvious, the MHJ tally is on both sides of the flag, so two cut MHJ tallies. John
 
Very interesting information contained in "Youth led by Youth" by Phillip Baker, Vilmor Publications 1989. The books are long out of print and almost impossible to find anymore. Mr. Baker owned this flag and it later went to Toby then to me back in 2008. Mr. Baker has since died unfortunately.

However, a friend sent me the applicable sections, attached here.


You don't have permission to view attachments.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
You don't have permission to view attachments.
 

Attachments

    You don't have permission to view attachments.
It's always fun to have published items in a collection. I had a lot of insignia shown in the Baker books, as do several members here. Toby sold many items from his collection a long time ago.
 
Hi John,

Mr Baker got the Bann name slightly wrong there as it was definitely Mittelweser and not "Mitte Weser". Anyway, Sulingen is correct as the Bann HQ and in 1937 the address was Hindenburgstrasse 19. Earlier the HQ had been located in Diepholz, Steinstrasse 2.

He too sees the explanation for the tally in the close geographical relationship between Bann 445 Hoya and Bann 73. Just to illustrate the geographical relationship and therefore the history between them, here's a little graphic that I knocked up to add to the post further up the page. As you can see, Bann 73 covered Hoya at this time. In 1938 Bann 445 Hoya first appears on my lists (5th of Sept 1938 - the Bann will have been raised some months prior to that but definitely not before July 1937). 445 Hoya will have taken some of the previous territory of Bann 73 but I don't have exact info on the boundaries for 445 post-Sept 1938

You don't have permission to view attachments.
 

Attachments

    You don't have permission to view attachments.
Thank you very much Garry, that is a great map. I have just run it off on glossy photo paper to stay with that flag. I appreciate it very much. John
 
Is there anyway to guess how many of these flags (without the MHJ tallies) would have been needed/ordered for 73 before the reorganization which made this flag redundant?

I am guessing just this one was made for Gefolgshaft 2. There probably was not a need for 2 of them?

Then, according to Wim, this flag and others belonging to 2 if any, should have become a traditions-flag and sent to the headquarters.

John
 
In my opinion then we have to know how many Gefolgschaften there were
at the moment of issuing the flag. Each Gefolgschaft had only one flag.

Look in my handbook for Plauen (page 599 through 602). There you may
get an idea for the later years.
The city of Plauen had 16 in total, including the flags for the special units;
Plauen-Land did have the numbers 17 through 36.
 
Is there anyway to guess how many of these flags (without the MHJ tallies) would have been needed/ordered for 73 before the reorganization which made this flag redundant?

I am guessing just this one was made for Gefolgshaft 2. There probably was not a need for 2 of them?

Then, according to Wim, this flag and others belonging to 2 if any, should have become a traditions-flag and sent to the headquarters.

John

Wim is right of course, only one flag per Gefolgschaft and you would need to know how many Gefolgschaften existed within Unterbann VI at the time when this flag was made to know how many other .../VI/73 flags there originally were. However, that second part is easier because during the period where your flag was in use there were four Gefolgschaften per Unterbann meaning that your flag is one of four that were carried by Gefolgschaften within Unterbann VI. This is clear from regulations going back to the 8th of Sept 1933 when, incidentally, the Unterbann came into being therefore giving us an earliest date for the existence of your flag in that configuration. Prior to that Gefolgschaften were numbered differently and I found info on what would later become Bann 73 Mittelweser from an old book that I have. Starting on the 4th of April 1932 after a reorganisation of the RJF structure, the Gefolgschaft number was in roman numerals. The book shows that Diepholz and Hoya (both later within the territory of Bann 73) were XXX and XVIII respectively. However, I don't recall having ever seen a Gefolgschaft flag from this period with numbers applied to it. The early flags that I have seen in photos that were described as such did not even have a corner panel but perhaps another member may have seen such photos.

To further hone in on when your flag first came into use I went through the RJF regulations beginning in 1933. The second reorganisation of the RJF structure was, as I say, published on the 8th of Sept 1933 and it stated that the maximum number of Unterbanne within each Bann was not to exceed five. However, your flag has Unterbann VI with this being due to the rapid growth of the HJ in the first years. This growth and the associated problems were referenced in orders on at least four occasions (October 1933, Aug 1934 and Sept 1934) with the RJF repeatedly asking units to provide exact personnel strengths and also numbers of unit types below Bann level (and equivalent). Additionally, the RJF banned the raising of new Unterbanne without express permission from Department I within the RJF. This shows that Unterbanne were indeed being "illegally" raised as required by Banne and that things were getting a little out of control viewed through the eyes of the RJF. Things were so bad that on the 11th of August 1934 the RJF had to put a stop on the creation of any new HJ Banne (and equivalent) until the 1st of Jan 1935 because constant changes to the structure were taking up too much of the staff's time. As far as the Unterbann was concerned, on the 24th of Jan 1934 the RJF gave the Banne the authority to officially raise additional Unterbanne above V albeit only with RJF permission. The proviso that an Unterbann should not consist of more than four Gefolgschaften remained extant. It is clear that Bann 73 may have raised Unterbann VI prior to the date of that order but as that can't be shown to be the case it is safer to say that your flag will date to shortly after January 1934 and that it will have been in use until 1935 and the introduction of standardised Gefolgschaft flags with Gefolgschaft/Bann on the corner panel. From there it may have been retained as a tradition flag in accordance with the order dated the 21st of March 1935 (introduction of standardised flags and pennants and what to do with old flags and pennants). More on that further down the post.

Despite appearances to the contrary in some cases, there was a "standard" flag in the early period as evidenced by the 1933 book "Die Uniformen der HJ" which clearly shows the correct design and appearance of a Gefolgschaft flag at this time. It looks like yours with the difference being the colour of the corner panel. In the book it is black but yours has a green panel. Now, my theory is that Gefolgschaft and Schar flags of this early period had corner panels in the Oberbann colour. If we take your flag, Bann 73 Mittelweser belonged to Oberbann 3 which had the colour green as does your corner panel. Going back to the 1933 book we see a Gefolgschaft flag for Bann B17. Corner patch is black and Bann B17 was a part of Oberbann 5 which had the colour black. On the same page there is a Schar flag for a Schar within Bann 134. It has a blue corner panel and indeed, Bann 134 was a part of Oberbann 4 which had the colour blue so I reckon that my theory is correct but I haven't yet seen an order/regulation which says that Gefolgschaft and Schar flags of this period were to be made this way.

As I mentioned earlier, an order dated the 7th of Oct 1933 mentions an upcoming revamp of the flag regulations and that units were permitted neither to buy new flags nor to issue instructions regarding them. On the 1st of Sept 1934 the RJF stated that the information on the revamp would be published in the following order. It wasn't for some reason but the decision, announced on the 27th of Oct 1934, to deprecate the Oberbann by the 1st of Jan 1935 (and with it the flag corner patch colours) and also the decision dated the 14th of Feb 1935 to remove the Unterbann number when describing a Gefolgschaft i.e. Gefolgschaft 17/146 instead of Gefolgschaft 17/III/146 may both have caused a delay as it would have meant amending and then reprinting the new flag regulations. In any case, the new flag regulations eventually appeared on the 21st of March 1935 meaning that your flag, in that configuration, was now either simply no longer used or that it became a non-carried Tradition flag. On that, here's what the 1935 regulation says about what to do with older flags and pennants that were in use prior to standardisation:

"All flags and pennants that belonged to Gefolgschaften, Fähnlein and Mädelgruppen prior to the 30th of January 1933 can continue in use as Tradition flags and pennants even where they do not meet the new specification on appearance and size. Jungenschaft, and Mädelschaft pennants that belonged to the units prior to the 30th of Jan 1933 can also be kept, even where they do not meet the new specification on appearance and size. All flags and pennants that came into use after the 30th of Jan 1933 must completely meet the new specification on size and appearance. Flags and pennants that do not meet the specification can no longer be carried. If there are flags and pennants in this group that were consecrated by the Reich Youth Leader or Gebiet officer or BDM Gau officer, they are to be placed in a hall of honour along with the other Tradition flags and pennants mentioned earlier. If flags and pennants have not been consecrated by the Reich Youth Leader or Gebiet officer or BDM Gau officer, they lose their validity as unit flags and should not be placed in the hall of honour"

The regulation goes on to say that if a Tradition flag is to remain in use that it must be attached to the new pole and that the flag topper should be the new bayonet type. Also, it must have the updated corner panel sewn onto to it which of course yours doesn't have. Gefolgschaft 2/VI/73 clearly didn't get rid of or recycle its flag post-March 1935 and as we can see, it wasn't modified (corner panel, seven rings/loops down the side) so that it could remain in use so the fact that it survived in that condition must mean that it qualified under the second section as a flag that had been consecrated and that by virtue of this was placed in a hall of honour. You could perhaps double-check this by measuring the flag's height and width (should be 120x180cm). If noticeably smaller than 120 and 180 respectively you may have your reason for why the flag was not modified to remain in use by this Gefolgschaft i.e. it was a flag that came into use and was consecrated after the 30th of Jan 1933 and did not meet the new 1935 specification on size and appearance.

Anyway, long post which I hope might be useful. As far as your flag is concerned, I don't have any doubts about it or about why it has the MHJ tally on it. Nice that it survived :)
 
Hey Wim, no probs. Took me over an hour just to go through the regulations for one question though. Was just imagining how long it takes to write a book(s) as you have done. Don't know if I would have the patience for that :)

Edit:

I wonder however what the actual reason is for the
second pattern tally to be sewn onto this early flag.

Yes, that is a mystery and all that can really be established is what I mentioned in post #1 with the territorial link between Bann 73 and Hoya which of course later became Bann 445 Hoya.
 
You could perhaps double-check this by measuring the flag's height and width (should be 120x180cm). If noticeably smaller than 120 and 180 respectively you may have your reason for why the flag was not modified to remain in use by this Gefolgschaft i.e. it was a flag that came into use and was consecrated after the 30th of Jan 1933 and did not meet the new 1935 specification on size and appearance.

It will take me time to read and reread your great post for which I thank you very much. To answer your question, the flag measures 114.3 cms by 162.6 cms.

John
 
It will take me time to read and reread your great post for which I thank you very much. To answer your question, the flag measures 114.3 cms by 162.6 cms.

John

Thanks John. Yes, with such a difference in size even accounting for shrinkage to the standardised post-1935 flag it is possible then that the flag was not recycled because it was a flag that came into use and was consecrated after the 30th of Jan 1933 but was too small to remain in use. Very likely that it ended up in a hall of honour as a static tradition flag.
 
Some more information for your records:

As of 1 Oct 1938:

Bann 73, "Diepholz"
Located in Sulingen
Address for HJ/DJ--Bassumer Str. 33 (tel. 227)
Address for BDM/JM--Bismarckstr. 19 (tel. 386)

Bann 445, "Hoya"
Located in Bassum
Address: Adolf-Hitler-Str. 2 (tel. 497)

As of June 1943:

Bann 73, "Diepholz"
Located in Sulingen
Address--Strasse der SA 53 (tel. 227)

Bann 445, "Hoya"
Located in Bassum
Address--Adolf-Hitler-Strasse 8 (tel. 497)

Bassum is of course on the map you provided, abovde the 1/73 mark
 
No idea why the addresses are different than the ones you listed earlier in this thread. John
 
Thanks John. Nice info :thumb: I only had the 1934 and 1937 addresses.
 
Hey Wim, no probs. Took me over an hour just to go through the regulations for one question though. Was just imagining how long it takes to write a book(s) as you have done.
Don't know if I would have the patience for that :) Edit:

People often do not realize how much time it takes to write a book. Sometimes one can
do a book within a year (enamel signs), with other occasions it takes years (read foreword
in the handbook). This then mainly is caused by lots of issues, by finding good photos and
these cost a lot the days. In fact it is not worth writing, when one takes in account time,
money soend or whatever.
Time and such are also the main problems with others, planning a book I knoew of some
who are talking about a book, which they started ten years ago or so! And then after all
the plan fails.....
 
Back
Top