Search Results

29th April 1942 Oflag XXI-C Screenshot 2021-11-27 at 09.29.50.png Screenshot 2021-11-27 at 09.29.50.png 1/1 Oflag XXI-C Schokken Contact Brief History to inform us of additional information regarding this page

6th March 1942 1/0 Re-used cover sent from 'Der Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Naumburg' to Wolfram Freiherr von Erffa in Hannover. Ref: 06.03.1942 Wolfram Freiherr von Erffa (1901-1980), German Architect. Research : https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_von_Erffa

30th May 1937 30th May 1937 1/1 Contact Brief History to inform us of additional information regarding this page

Royalty & Nobility Royalty & Nobility 1/1 Royalty & Nobility House of Hannover Ernest Augustus (1887-1953) Duke of Brunswick (Braunschweig) and family House of Windsor Edward VIII (1894-1972) House of Wittelsbach Royal correspondence to Madeleine Pinkerton (1936-1940) Contact Brief History to inform us of additional information regarding this page

15th December 1933 1/3 Contact Brief History to inform us of additional information regarding this page

Official letter-sheet from the District Court I, Berlin. Featuring a 'Preuss. Langericht I/ Berlin' Court Seal to the reverse. Ref: 17.01.1934 17th January 1934 Court 'doily' seal 1/1 Official letter-sheet from the District Court I, Berlin. Featuring a 'Preuss. Langericht I/ Berlin' Court Seal to the reverse. Ref: 17.01.1934 Contact Brief History to inform us of additional information regarding this page

20th August 1937 'Flag Wars' 20th August 1937 'Flag Wars' 1/0 SEE 27/79 'Flag Wars' An article by Nadine Rossol Royal Historical Society Blog and Online Resources, 16th September 2025 In mid-July, a journalist from a right-wing newspaper claimed that the local holiday resort was in ‘a state of war’ because two flags had gone missing.[1] This event does not relate to English communities in the summer of 2025, despite similar language, but to the German seaside 100 years ago. ‘Flag wars’, as they were dubbed even then, are serious business. They show individual agency, political mobilisation and national identity by visibly demonstrating the significance of political symbols. Flag conflicts touch the emotional core of politics, and this is why they matter. This was as true in 1920s-Germany as it is in England today. Displaying—or removing—flags is a conscious act carried out for an audience. There is nothing private about flags, they fly in public or semi-public spaces including city halls, village squares, and gardens. Politicians occasionally dismiss flag conflicts as superficial matters that divert attention from serious political issues. Writing in the immediate post-war period, the Social Democratic politician Otto Braun recalled how, during the 1920s and 1930s, ‘flag issues continued to have far greater significance in the political life of the republic and outweighed many topics that were materially more important.'[2] What Braun missed is that ‘flag wars’ were, and are, at the heart of citizens’ engagement with politics. Contemporaries in Weimar Germany understood this and so too, closer to home, do the people of Northern Ireland. History does not repeat itself, but the processes of public debate, political communication and emotional mobilisation around flags do. 1. Flags come with historical & political connotations: re-claiming is difficult Flags are not made for nuance. They manifest the symbolic power of a political regime and can serve to communicate inclusion and exclusion. Regime changes often mean new flags. The winter of 1918/19 saw a brief period of openness in Germany when, after the revolution and collapse of the monarchy, the country’s political symbols had to be re-thought. Left-wing artist Käthe Kollwitz placed the curious combination of an Imperial black-white-red flag together with red bunting and a green wreath in the window of her Berlin flat to greet returning soldiers. Politically, Kollwitz’s combination of symbols made no sense but it expressed her emotional state of mind. In the aftermath of the armistice Imperial flags quickly turned into the symbol of those fighting against democracy, while red flags returned to being the partisan symbol of the political left. Half a year later, in July 1919, the new National Assembly agreed on black-red-gold as national colours. This decision was a compromise among Weimar’s republican parties. Black-red-gold represented a clear break with the monarchy, did not stand for a single party, and linked the young republic to 1848. However, black-white-red was kept in several specific flags, for instance for the merchant navy and the Reichswehr. 2. Raising flags is never neutral: the political context always matters The early years of the Weimar Republic demonstrated that some supporters of black-white-red had more in mind than the glories of the past. That the assassinations of the democratic politicians Matthias Erzberger and Walther Rathenau—along with other acts of political violence—were carried out under the black-white-red banner showed the intent of those on the nationalist right. These attacks triggered a reaction on the republican side too. By the mid-1920s, the black-red-gold colours stood for the defence of the Weimar Republic. Election campaigns were fought in these two camps, mobilising for or against the republic, behind these respective colour combinations. The republican flag was now loaded with meaning: it linked 1848 to Weimar democracy, centred on defending the present republic and remembrance of republican sacrifices. In 1926 attempts were made to introduce a new, more unifying, design for the national flag, with examples including a combination of the republican colours with the Iron Cross. It was, however, too late. Both the flags had become symbols that stood for the existential division of the Weimar Republic: for or against democracy. 3. Flag conflicts are about emotions, agency and identity By the mid-1920s, flag conflicts had moved from debates in parliament to village greens, market squares and balconies. Republican parties and organisations mobilised around the black-red-gold colours and called upon the local population to display them on important occasions. Supporters of black-white-red did the same and questioned the legitimacy of republican flags on city halls, school buildings or at war memorials. Each side counted flags, as proof of local commitment, and claimed that their opponents were exaggerating their own numbers. For the republicans the black-red-gold flag, even when it was only in someone’s garden, was the key symbol to rally around for defending democracy. This explains the intensity of flag conflicts at local level. Anti-republicans engaged equally actively by stealing or destroying republican flags. The court files on these conflicts provide insight into local circumstances. One ‘Josef S.’ claimed that he had nothing against the republican flag of his neighbour but took it down because it disturbed his pigeons. Another person was accused of cutting up a black-red-gold flag and sewing it together as a swastika. Pupils attended school celebrations of the republic’s democratic constitution dressed in black-white-red to show their, and their parents, disapproval. 4. ‘Flag wars’ need a spark: newspaper coverage, citizens’ actions and politics The summers of 1927 and 1928 witnessed a ‘flag war on the beaches’ during which republicans escalated small-scale incidents to the highest political level. Holiday makers decorated their sandcastles, wicker chairs or beach huts with flags—a then common practice at German seaside resorts. However, republicans informed the press and police that their black-red-gold flags were frequently stolen or vandalised. A visitor on the island of Sylt asked the local mayor for help as his flags had gone missing, including ‘the big black-red-gold flag and the 10 small ones dotted around the sandcastle as well as the two republican flags fixed to the wicker chair.’ Accounts of the latest flag incidents became a regular feature in the press. In response, the republican minister Albert Grzesinski deployed more police to show that the republic protected its colours everywhere, even on beaches. Not everyone was impressed by this reaction. The national conservative paper Deutsche Tages Zeitung claimed that Germany’s criminals would celebrate as the police focused on arresting anyone who stumbled over a republican heap of sand.[3] 5. ‘Flag wars’ are not inherent to one specific political conviction The ‘flag wars’ of the 1920s engaged supporters of the Weimar Republic and their enemies to an equal degree. Towards the republic’s end, conflicts between the political extremes, the Communists and the National Socialists, heightened the existing battles over flags, public space and political power. When the Nazis took office in 1933, they quickly banned the republican colours and phased out Imperial flags. A combination of swastika and Imperial flags was initially tolerated to keep the national conservatives on side and to stress the Nazis’ connections to Germany’s Imperial past. As in the 1920s, the display of flags was seen as an expression of popular support. In the city of Stuttgart, in June 1933, a local Nazi leader complained that Imperial flags greatly outnumbered Nazi flags in the streets. He suggested denouncing businesses and house owners who refused to show the swastika.[4] To display the Imperial colours was clearly no longer a sufficient demonstration of loyalty. In 1937 all remaining flags except Nazi ones were forbidden. However, true supporters of the Third Reich knew well before this which banner they should raise. [1] See Nadine Rossol, ‘Flaggenkrieg am Badestrand. Lokale Möglichkeiten repräsentativer Mitgestaltung in der Weimarer Republik’, in Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft , 7/8, 2008, pp. 619-625. [2] Berliner Tageblatt, 351, 29/07/1933: Die Hakenkreuzflagge in Stuttgart. [3] Berliner Börsen Zeitung , 32 (17 July 1929): Auf Befehl des Landrates: Mobilmachung des Reichsbanners. [4] Otto Braun, Von Weimar zu Hitler (Hamburg, 1949) p. 97. Contact Brief History to inform us of additional information regarding this page

Official cover sent from 'Der Kommissar für die Osthilfe' in Berlin to the Wendische Volksbank AG, in Bautzen. Featuring the official briefstempel of the organisation. Generic cancellation JB: 117/813. Ref: 12.12.1935 - 16/62 12th December 1935 Osthilfe 12.12.1935 - 16_62 Osthilfe reverse.jpeg 12.12.1935 - 16_62 Osthilfe reverse.jpeg 1/1 Official cover sent from 'Der Kommissar für die Osthilfe' in Berlin to the Wendische Volksbank AG, in Bautzen. Featuring the official briefstempel of the organisation. Generic cancellation JB: 117/813. Ref: 12.12.1935 - 16/62 Osthilfe From 1926 to 1937, the Eastern Aid was an agricultural policy support program of the Reich government and the Prussian state government for the eastern Prussian provinces . The starting point for this aid measure for East Prussia Germany was the previously agreed East Prussia Aid. At the turn of the year 1932/33, the explosive Eastern Aid scandal developed . The possible involvement of Reich President Paul von Hindenburg may have played a role in Hitler's appointment as Reich Chancellor on 30th January 1933. Lina von Hindenburg , the widow of Hindenburg's brother, could not keep the old Hindenburg estate Neudeck because of hopeless over-indebtedness and offered it for sale in the fall of 1927. It was given to Hindenburg on his 80th birthday on 2nd October 1927. His friend Oldenburg-Januschau had collected the funds for this primarily from members of the Reich Association of German Industry and the Reichslandbund. On 13th January 1933, the Reich Finance Minister Count Schwerin von Krosigk reported to the Budget Committee on the financial situation of the states and municipalities. With the German National People's Party abstaining , the committee adopted a motion by the Centre to clarify: 1. which areas were refinanced and 2. what amounts of money have flowed to large landowners on the one hand and to medium and small businesses on the other hand from the Eastern Aid, 3. what size the settlement assumed in 1932 and what settlement areas were made available in 1933. The DNVP had held back. Alfred Hugenberg offered his party a part in the government in a conversation with Schleicher. His condition was that the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Food would be merged under his control. On 19th January 1933, the Centre Party MP Joseph Ersing revealed details of the misuse of public funds from the Eastern Aid in the Reichstag 's budget committee: 'And if the money given by the Reich was not used to cover debts, but to buy luxury cars and racehorses and for trips to the Riviera, then the Reich would have to demand repayment of the money. The large landowners were trying to make further parliamentary negotiations impossible. Therefore, behind the scenes, the strongest activity was being developed for an immediate dissolution of the Reichstag '. The allegations attracted interest not least because in connection with Ludendorff's revelations the names of Hindenburg and others were mentioned. Oldenburg-Januschaus had been mentioned in the press. These families should also have been favored in the allocation of public resources. It had also become known at the end of 1932 that Neudeck had been transferred to the president's son Oskar von Hindenburg in order to avoid inheritance tax. This could not be legally challenged, but it damaged Hindenburg's image as an 'honest and correct Prussian without fault' and increased interest in the new revelations. On 21st January 1933, the DNVP also announced open opposition. It spoke of the dangers of 'Bolshevism in the countryside' – as they did against Brüning in 1932. On 22nd January 1933, Hitler, Wilhelm Frick, Hermann Göring, Paul Körner, Franz von Papen, Otto Meissner and Oskar von Hindenburg met in Joachim von Ribbentrop's house. The discussion focused on the formation of a Hitler-Papen cabinet and the overthrow of the Schleicher cabinet. Hitler and Oskar von Hindenburg spoke for about two hours in private in the next room. Meissner later reported at the Wilhelmstraße Trial that Hindenburg said on the way back in the taxi that 'there was now no other option' than to make Hitler chancellor. Historians such as Karl-Dietrich Bracher suspect that Hitler threatened Hindenburg with further revelations; moreover, Papen himself agreed to be vice-chancellor; the DNVP and Stahlhelm had the majority in the cabinet and further revelations could be prevented. On 28th January 1933, Schleicher announced in the Tägliche Rundschau that he would ask Hindenburg for the authority to dissolve the Reichstag. In the event of rejection, he announced his resignation. At the same time, he warned of a 'Papen-Hugenberg dictatorship cabinet'. At the cabinet meeting in the morning there were no significant objections from ministers to Schleicher's plan. At midday he met Hindenburg. He refused and fired Schleicher. Although it was expected that Schleicher would resign, the news was treated as a sensation in the press. Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor on 30th January 1933. He formed a government of German Nationalists and National Socialists. Hugenberg became Reich Minister for Economics and Food, in this role also Commissioner for Eastern Aid. The Berliner Tageblatt reported on the collection of the already delivered files on the Eastern Aid scandal by officials of the Reich Commissariat for Eastern Aid on the morning of 2nd February 1933. Five days later, the same paper published an article about riots that prevented the investigation into the Eastern Aid scandal from continuing. Under the title 'The Eastern Aid Swamp', the social democratic newspaper Vorwärts reported on 25th February 1933 that the Berlin police chief had forbidden the SPD representative Kurt Heinig from publishing a brochure as a reporter for the investigative committee on the Eastern Aid scandal - because of alleged threats to public order. Source: Wikipedia Contact Brief History to inform us of additional information regarding this page

Bohemia and Moravia Postage stamp issues 1939-1945 Bohemia and Moravia Postage stamp issues 1939-1945 21.11.1939 Czech various reverse.jpeg 21.11.1939 Czech various reverse.jpeg 1/1 Cover sent from Muglinau to an address in Luhačovice. Featuring various Czech/ Bohemia and Moravia stamps: 5 H ('mitläufer' - Mi.277 - first issued 1929 - valid until 15.12.1939); 5 H, Mi.1 (Mi.277 overprint), and 25 H, Mi.4 (Mi.280 overprint); new definitives 5 H, 10 H, and 20 H (Mi.20-22). Ref: 21.11.1939 - 15/65 In the early hours of the morning of 15th March 1939, the German Army marched in and occupied the Czech lands of Bohemia & Moravia, the important industrial and mining region around the town of Ostrova had been occupied during the preceding night. One of the immediate declarations was the establishment of the Reichsmark as legal tender with a fixed rate of exchange of 1 RM = 10 Czech. Crowns. Further to this came the extension of the validity of the then current Czechoslovakian stamps and postal stationery to 15th December 1939 with the current issue of Czech stamps being over-printed 'Bohmen-Mahren/ Cechy-Morava' on 15th July 1939. German feldpost mail (postmark Form 1, 28mm: single circle , ''FELDPOST'/ identification letter/ date/ Reichsadler) were cancelled without any feldpost number (FPN). However, registered mail was postmarked with Field Post Office number 531 (not catalogued in Michel Deutsche Feldpost) with the feldpost R-Label bearing the Field Post Office number (either had-written or stamped). Feldpost Form 26, 29mm double circle was also used in Brno (Brunn). Feldpost in the Czech-Moravian territory was terminated in May 1939, but was re-opened at the end of 1944. [For further information on german feldpost in Czechoslovakia see Michel Deutsche Feldpost pp.41-42] The occupation authorities were well aware of the animosity of the local population and therefore did not trust their official mail to the Czecho-Moravian postal services. Thus following the termination of the field post service, a special 'Deutsche Dienstpost Bohmen-Mahren' was introduced to cater for letters sent by the Occupation Authorities, and for German civilian and military agencies and their personnel. It was later extended to cover essentail war industries, which however, had to obtain a special permit. This service did not carry any parcels or money orders, onlt letters and registered and special delivery mail. This service was restricted to the transfer of mails from one office to another, they did not deliver to the addressees, official organisations and offices had to collect it from the 'Dienstpost' office. Letters to private individuals were sent to the nearest Dienstpost office, and from there either via the Protectorate Post Office for delivery, or an advice wa sent advising the addressee to call and collect in person. Dienstpost offices were sited in all the more important towns and cities, and in the capital Prague, there were three: Prague 1 at the Czernin Palace, Prague 2 in Bredovska Street, and Prague PLST (Postleitstelle) which was used as a sorting and routing centre. German official mail was canceled using a double circle postmark containing the words 'DEUTSCHE DIENSTPOST BOHMEN-MAREN' together with the town name. German military mail began to use new double circle cancel types bearing the words 'DEUTSCHE REICHSPOST' together with the post office identification letter (no place name). Source: Germania Vol.6 No.2 pp.114-120 Further information regarding the identification numbers and letters used on 'Deutsche Dienstpost' and 'Deutsche Reichspost' cancellations can be found in this volume. Bohemia and Moravia Postage stamp issues 1939 - 1945 Vorläufer - Czech stamps cancelled between 15.03 - 12.04.1939 Mitläufer - Czech stamps cancelled between 13.04 - 15.12.1939 1939 Mi.1-40 16th March 1939 - Local issue overprints from Mährisch-Ostrau Mi.A1 13th April - Definitive Mi.B1 22nd April - Airmail Mi.1-19 15th July - Definitive s (overprinted) Mi.20-37 29th July/1942 - Definitives Mi.42-50 25th August - Newspaper stamp Mi.51 1st December - Definitive (mass mailing) Mi.52 1st December - Service stamp (direct delivery) Mi.1-14 1st December/10th June 1940 - Postage Due Mi.15 1st December - Postage Due (direct delivery) 1940 Mi.38-41 31st March/29th June - Definitives Mi.53-54 29th June - Red Cross Mi.55-61 20th November/Oct 1941 - Definitives 1941 Mi.1-12 1st January - Service stamp Mi.62-63 20th April - Red Cross Mi.64 1st June - Definitive Mi.65-72 28th July/ Jan 1942 - Definitives Mi.73-74 25th August - 100th Birthday of Antonin Dvorák Mi.75-78 7th September - Prague trade fair Mi.79-82 26th October - 150th anniversary of the death of Mozart 1942 Mi.83-84 15th March - 3rd anniversary of the Protectorate Mi.85-88 20th April - Adolf Hitler's 53rd birthday Mi.89-110 1st & 22nd July - Definitives: Adolf Hitler Mi.111-112 1st September - Red Cross 1943 Mi.113 10th January - Stamp Day Mi.13-24 15th February - Service stamp Mi.114-116 29th January - Winter Relief Mi.117-125 15th February - Newspaper stamps Mi.126-127 20th April - Adolf Hitler's 54th birthday Mi.128-130 22nd May - 130th anniversary of the birth of Wagner Mi.131 28th May - 1st anniversary of the death of Heydrich Mi.132 16th September - Red Cross Admission Stamps Mi.1 10th July - Theresienstadt Ghetto 1944 Mi.133-135 15th March - 5th anniversary of the Protectorate Mi.136-137 20th April - Adolf Hitler's 55th birthday Mi.138-139 12th May - 60th anniversary of the death of Smetana See 28/52 Mi.140-141 21st November - 600th Anniversary of St. Veits Cathedral, Prague 1945 Mi.142 1st February - Definitive Contact Brief History to inform us of additional information regarding this page

28th January 1934 1/4 Contact Brief History to inform us of additional information regarding this page

1st September 1945 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st 22nd 23rd 24th 25th 26th 27th 28th 29th 30th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st 22nd 23rd 24th 25th 26th 27th 28th 29th 30th

Collectors cover sent by stamp dealer Nordisk-Mueller in Diessen am Ammersee to a printer in Aue, Saxony. The cover features Mi.540-543, stamps first issued on 30th June 1934 for the Colony Memorial Celebration. With depictions of colonial explorers Franz A. E. Lüderitz (Mi.540), Dr. Gustav Nachtigal (Mi.541), Dr. Karl Peters (Mi.542), and Herman von Wissmann (Mi.543). To the reverse is printed the motto, 'Die Philatelie ist das Sport-gebiet des geistig Arbeitenden' (Philately is the sports field of the intellectual worker). Ref: 13.09.1934 - 15/54 Mi.540-543 (30.06.1934) Colony Memorial Celebration 13.09.1934 Colonial Mi.540-543 reverse.jpeg 13.09.1934 Colonial Mi.540-543 reverse.jpeg 1/1 Collectors cover sent by stamp dealer Nordisk-Mueller in Diessen am Ammersee to a printer in Aue, Saxony. The cover features Mi.540-543, stamps first issued on 30th June 1934 for the Colony Memorial Celebration. With depictions of colonial explorers Franz A. E. Lüderitz (Mi.540), Dr. Gustav Nachtigal (Mi.541), Dr. Karl Peters (Mi.542), and Herman von Wissmann (Mi.543). To the reverse is printed the motto, 'Die Philatelie ist das Sport-gebiet des geistig Arbeitenden' (Philately is the sports field of the intellectual worker). Ref: 13.09.1934 - 15/54 Mi.540 - 543 German Coloniser's Jubilee (issued alongside the ' Memorial Festival of the Lost Colonies' ) Notes: Design: ? Engravings taken from photographs supplied by the 'Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft' (German Colonial Society). Letterpress printing. Sheets 10 x 5. Swastika watermark. Perf. 13:13¾ (Michel); 13¼:13¾ (Harper & Scheck). Quantity issued: unknown (only one printing despite large demand). Valid until 31.12.1935 The 12 Pf exists with either left or right hand margin imperforate. This occurred by sheets being carelessly placed in the perforating machine. (Harper & Scheck) Mi.540. Franz Adolf Eduard Lüderitz. Ref: 21.07.1934 - 24/14 Mi.541. Dr. Gustav Nachtigal. Ref: 21.07.1934 - 24/14 Mi.541. Karl Peters. Ref: 21.07.1934 Mi.543. Hermann von Wissmann. Ref: 20.07.1934 Nordisk-Mueller Business to be researched Contact Brief History to inform us of additional information regarding this page