Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Post by Gorque » 03 Jun 2012 12:36

Hi Igor:

No, I don't know what you mean. Would you be so kind as to clarify.
Egorka wrote:You know what I mean. :wink:

Here is the Montgomery's speech. My highlights.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peoples ... 9028.shtml
21 Army Group Personal Message from the C — in — C

....

Good luck to you all, wherever you may be.

(Sgd) B L Montgomery
Field Marshal
C-in-C
21 Army Group

Germany 1945
That's a very precise date, don't you think? Is it May 4, 1945, May 7, 1945, May 9, 1945 or later? :)

Best regards,

Gorque

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Post by Gorque » 03 Jun 2012 12:46

Hi Igor:
Egorka wrote:Another good one about what ment "Allied Powers".
Joint Statement with Churchill and Stalin on the Yalta Conference – February 11, 1945

THE DEFEAT OF GERMANY
We have considered and determined the military plans of the three Allied powers for the final defeat of the common enemy. The military staffs of the three Allied Nations have met in daily meetings throughout the Conference. These meetings ... bla-bla-bla
And then just to be on the safe side - Britannica online on "Allied Powers"
In World War II the chief Allied Powers were Great Britain, France (except during the German occupation, 1940–44), the Soviet Union (after its entry in June 1941), the United States (after its entry on Dec. 8–11, 1941), and China. More generally the Allies included all the wartime members of the United Nations, the signatories to the Declaration of the United Nations. The original...
The second definition seems quite nebulous, don't you think? The only way we'd know for certain as to what Monty meant with the term "Allied Powers" would be to consult Monty's diaries/memoirs or the same from any of the attendees at the meeting. However what is certain, is that the May 4 agreement was a separate surrender to C-in-C, 21 Army group is highlighted as compared to the May 7 general surrender where the term "Soviet High Command" is specifically mentioned.

Best regards,

Gorque

User avatar
Egorka
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 12 May 2012 20:21
Location: Moscow

Re: Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Post by Egorka » 03 Jun 2012 21:02

Gorque wrote:That's a very precise date, don't you think? Is it May 4, 1945, May 7, 1945, May 9, 1945 or later? :)
Like it makes any difference!
I think it was written between 4th and 8th of May.
The Montgomery's adress to the troops was shown in the Pathé News.
Here is the full issue from May 1945 for which Monty was recorded.
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/victo ... ender+1945

Considering the footage after 9th of May and the information app. @7:10, we can conclude that the footage is made not later than 9th of May and not yearlier than 14 days before 9th May (Pathé News were biweekly).

But like it makes any difference!
Last edited by Egorka on 03 Jun 2012 22:05, edited 1 time in total.
Best regards
Igor

User avatar
Egorka
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 12 May 2012 20:21
Location: Moscow

Re: Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Post by Egorka » 03 Jun 2012 21:18

Gorque wrote:The second definition seems quite nebulous, don't you think?
Hello,
You can address your question about nebulosity directly to Britannica.
In the mean while, I can just point that it doesn't raise any doubts that USSR was included into Allied Powers in May 1945.
Another thing to mention is that "Allied Powers" and "Allies" are sinonimous accoding to Britannica.
The only way we'd know for certain as to what Monty meant with the term "Allied Powers" would be to consult Monty's diaries/memoirs or the same from any of the attendees at the meeting.
Should we do that for every word in the agreement? What if Monty ment something else with word "hostilities", huh?
However what is certain, is that the May 4 agreement was a separate surrender to C-in-C, 21 Army group is highlighted as compared to the May 7 general surrender where the term "Soviet High Command" is specifically mentioned.
Best regards,
Gorque
My yes to all that. Does not disprove any of my points.
Best regards
Igor

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Post by Gorque » 04 Jun 2012 13:08

Hi Igor:
Egorka wrote:
Gorque wrote:That's a very precise date, don't you think? Is it May 4, 1945, May 7, 1945, May 9, 1945 or later? :)
Like it makes any difference!
I think it was written between 4th and 8th of May.
The Montgomery's adress to the troops was shown in the Pathé News.
Here is the full issue from May 1945 for which Monty was recorded.
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/victo ... ender+1945

Considering the footage after 9th of May and the information app. @7:10, we can conclude that the footage is made not later than 9th of May and not yearlier than 14 days before 9th May (Pathé News were biweekly).

But like it makes any difference!
Thanks for posting that news clip, even though it does appear to cover a few days, i.e mainly from May 4 to May 7-9, it still helps in pinning down the approximate dates. :)

The exact date of Monty's speech does matter for the separate surrender of May 4 ran counter to the Allied demand for unconditional surrender and therefor the term "Allied Powers" could be construed to only include the Western Powers, although, to be honest, I doubt that. I wonder whether what Monty and Churchill discussed after the initial meeting and before the May 4 signing had any bearing upon the wording of the document?

Best regards,

Gorque

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Post by Gorque » 04 Jun 2012 13:33

Hi again Igor:
Egorka wrote:
Gorque wrote:The second definition seems quite nebulous, don't you think?
Hello,
You can address your question about nebulosity directly to Britannica.
In the mean while, I can just point that it doesn't raise any doubts that USSR was included into Allied Powers in May 1945.
Another thing to mention is that "Allied Powers" and "Allies" are sinonimous accoding to Britannica.

I tend to agree with you regarding the inclusion of the Soviet Union in the term "Allied Powers", as they were one of the "Big Three", although, to be honest, it could be viewed in a numbers of ways based upon Brittanica's definition.
Egorka wrote:
The only way we'd know for certain as to what Monty meant with the term "Allied Powers" would be to consult Monty's diaries/memoirs or the same from any of the attendees at the meeting.
Should we do that for every word in the agreement? What if Monty ment something else with word "hostilities", huh?
Your analogy reeks of disdain and insincerity. Are you tiring of this discussion? It would be a shame if that was occurring, for a good deal has been discussed and aired in what I presumed was a collegial discourse.
Egorka wrote:
However what is certain, is that the May 4 agreement was a separate surrender to C-in-C, 21 Army group is highlighted as compared to the May 7 general surrender where the term "Soviet High Command" is specifically mentioned.
My yes to all that. Does not disprove any of my points.
Nor does the disproval prove any of your points, however, what it does is shed a shadow of uncertainty. :)


BTW, Igor, you still haven't answered my request for clarification as to what you meant with:
Egorka wrote:You know what I mean. :wink:

Best regards,

Gorque

User avatar
Egorka
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 12 May 2012 20:21
Location: Moscow

Re: Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Post by Egorka » 04 Jun 2012 15:50

Gorque wrote:Your analogy reeks of disdain and insincerity.
What are you talking about?! How is that?
Are you tiring of this discussion?
A little bit tiring of this "Allied Powers" thing... Yes.
So far I have arguments for my point of view about interpretation of "Allied Powers", but you have none to show that "Allied Powers" was used with different meaning in the surrender text.
It would be a shame if that was occurring, for a good deal has been discussed and aired in what I presumed was a collegial discourse.
Yes, true.
Egorka wrote:
However what is certain, is that the May 4 agreement was a separate surrender to C-in-C, 21 Army group is highlighted as compared to the May 7 general surrender where the term "Soviet High Command" is specifically mentioned.
My yes to all that. Does not disprove any of my points.
Nor does the disproval prove any of your points, however, what it does is shed a shadow of uncertainty. :)
My point is in the text of the surrender terms. "Allied Powers" is "Allied Powers".
You can disprove my conclusion by proving that "Allied Powers" means something else. I am not saying that I am 100% sure it is so, cause legal issues are sometimes were curly and different from the everyday logic.
But so far there are NO indications that term "Allied Powers" in the surrender text does not include USSR!
BTW, Igor, you still haven't answered my request for clarification as to what you meant with:
Egorka wrote:You know what I mean. :wink:
I provided you with the video where Montgomery himself calls USSR an Ally togethter with USA.
In a speech said by him with 1-2 days since surrender was signed. So for me claiming that Monty ment something different with term "Allied Powers" is like twisting Monty's words.

Regards
Igor
Best regards
Igor

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Post by Gorque » 04 Jun 2012 19:57

Hi Igor:
Egorka wrote:
Gorque wrote:Your analogy reeks of disdain and insincerity.
What are you talking about?! How is that?

By attempting to equate a clearly defined word, hostilities, with the term, "Allied Powers", that has some leeway for interpretation.
Egorka wrote:
Are you tiring of this discussion?
A little bit tiring of this "Allied Powers" thing... Yes.
So far I have arguments for my point of view about interpretation of "Allied Powers", but you have none to show that "Allied Powers" was used with different meaning in the surrender text.
I have been searching, but as of yet, I've been unable to find a definition, although as I mentioned previously, I'm heavily tending to the term including the Soviet Union. :)
Egorka wrote:
It would be a shame if that was occurring, for a good deal has been discussed and aired in what I presumed was a collegial discourse.
Yes, true.

:)
Egorka wrote:
However what is certain, is that the May 4 agreement was a separate surrender to C-in-C, 21 Army group is highlighted as compared to the May 7 general surrender where the term "Soviet High Command" is specifically mentioned.
My yes to all that. Does not disprove any of my points.
Nor does the disproval prove any of your points, however, what it does is shed a shadow of uncertainty. :)
My point is in the text of the surrender terms. "Allied Powers" is "Allied Powers".
You can disprove my conclusion by proving that "Allied Powers" means something else. I am not saying that I am 100% sure it is so, cause legal issues are sometimes were curly and different from the everyday logic.
As am I Igor. It looks like we've found another point of agreement, that is while we both opine that there the term "Allied Powers" probably does include the Soviet Union, there is some - a small some - doubt. :)
Egorka wrote:But so far there are NO indications that term "Allied Powers" in the surrender text does not include USSR!
There's the rub. I could understand including the Soviets in the term "Allied Powers" in meaning no offensive actions were to be taken against the forces of the Soviet Union for that could be translated as a surrender to the Western Allies but allowing the German armies to continue hostilities with the Soviet Union, something which was discussed at the meetings between Monty and the Germans and which Monty flatly refused. But then there's the question of why would the Soviets be allowed to take into captivity any Germans on the island of Bornholm when the May 4 document specifically includes Bornholm in 21 Army group's responsibility. In this case, including the Soviet Union in the term "Allied Powers" would make no sense and would run counter to the May 4 terms.

Egorka wrote:
BTW, Igor, you still haven't answered my request for clarification as to what you meant with:
Egorka wrote:You know what I mean. :wink:
I provided you with the video where Montgomery himself calls USSR an Ally togethter with USA.
In a speech said by him with 1-2 days since surrender was signed. So for me claiming that Monty ment something different with term "Allied Powers" is like twisting Monty's words.

So you were insinuating that I was being disingenuous. Such accusation, that is if I'm reading your words correctly, does not foster a friendly environment for open and honest discussion. I'm doing and have done my best to avoid including sniping comments in my replies, but if any have gotten through, them I apologize. :)

BTW Igor, I wasn't "twisting Monty's words". I offered an opinion based upon my uncertainty to the term "Allied Powers" as per the facts I've listed above, as well as the fact that I doubted that Monty uttered those words on May 4 based upon my observation that the uniform Monty was wearing in the early portion of the video was not the same uniform when he was in when he accepted the German surrender on May 4.

Best regards,

Gorque

User avatar
Egorka
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 12 May 2012 20:21
Location: Moscow

Re: Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Post by Egorka » 04 Jun 2012 20:57

Hello,

Most words in a language have more than one meaning (inluding "hostilities", whichhas 2 positions in my Oxford dictionary). As well most words do have also leeway for interpretation.

If "Allied Powers" includes USSR in the surrender agreement text, than it has legal implications.
There's the rub. I could understand including the Soviets in the term "Allied Powers" in meaning no offensive actions were to be taken against the forces of the Soviet Union for that could be translated as a surrender to the Western Allies but allowing the German armies to continue hostilities with the Soviet Union, something which was discussed at the meetings between Monty and the Germans and which Monty flatly refused.
What? I cann't make sense of it. Can you, please, re-phrase?
But then there's the question of why would the Soviets be allowed to take into captivity any Germans on the island of Bornholm when the May 4 document specifically includes Bornholm in 21 Army group's responsibility. In this case, including the Soviet Union in the term "Allied Powers" would make no sense and would run counter to the May 4 terms.
Well, again Eisenhower kind of answered on this question directly to OKW.
One surrender in no way can prevent a specific enemy unit to be captured by another force (RKKA) until the surrender is accepted by the original force (Brits), because after that the enemy force is obeying to the original captor (Brits).

Think of this as Catch22 for Germans, which was in a way intentional, because any surrender had to be Unconditional, which was very important for all Allies at that time.
So you were insinuating that I was being disingenuous.
Insinuating? You could have been candid. But it felt to me as delibirate twisting of words for one reason or another.

Regards
Igor
Best regards
Igor

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Post by Gorque » 04 Jun 2012 22:27

Hi Igor:
Egorka wrote:Most words in a language have more than one meaning (inluding "hostilities", whichhas 2 positions in my Oxford dictionary). As well most words do have also leeway for interpretation.
Fair enough.
Egorka wrote:If "Allied Powers" includes USSR in the surrender agreement text, than it has legal implications.

Agreed.
Egorka wrote:
There's the rub. I could understand including the Soviets in the term "Allied Powers" in meaning no offensive actions were to be taken against the forces of the Soviet Union for that could be translated as a surrender to the Western Allies but allowing the German armies to continue hostilities with the Soviet Union, something which was discussed at the meetings between Monty and the Germans and which Monty flatly refused.
What? I cann't make sense of it. Can you, please, re-phrase?
I'll try. :)

During the negotiations, the Germans wanted to surrender to the Western Allies, yet keep on fighting the Soviets in order to buy additional time for civilians and soldiers to retreat to the lands slated for Western Allied occupation. Monty (and later on Eisenhower) would not have any of this. The Germans in the lands specified by the May 4 agreement had to cease fighting by 8:00 on May 5. This included the Soviets, which was all well and good as there wasn't any Soviets on Bornholm, or for that matter Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein or any of the other lands mentioned. The German Navy, on the other hand, was another matter as it was still active in the evacuations in the Baltic, which also meant it was engaged in actions against the Soviets. I hope this explanation is more concise.
Egorka wrote:
But then there's the question of why would the Soviets be allowed to take into captivity any Germans on the island of Bornholm when the May 4 document specifically includes Bornholm in 21 Army group's responsibility. In this case, including the Soviet Union in the term "Allied Powers" would make no sense and would run counter to the May 4 terms.
Well, again Eisenhower kind of answered on this question directly to OKW.
One surrender in no way can prevent a specific enemy unit to be captured by another force (RKKA) until the surrender is accepted by the original force (Brits), because after that the enemy force is obeying to the original captor (Brits).

Think of this as Catch22 for Germans, which was in a way intentional, because any surrender had to be Unconditional, which was very important for all Allies at that time.
Precisely. The forces on Bornholm were in a legal limbo brought about by the British not venturing to Bornholm to accept the surrender. They were included in the May 4 agreement, which meant that the ships that had arrived there and those that will be arriving there, (the May 4 agreement was silent on ships in-transit) had to stay in Bornholm until the British arrived to accept their surrender. But if the British weren't going to accept their surrender, then they had every right to continue on to Denmark proper. Monty did say that he would accept individual units into his lines, but not whole units, or something of that nature. The Germans on Bornholm, by honoring the May 4 agreement by staying put, also had their POW status degraded when the Soviets arrived, as the Soviet Union, if my memory serves me correctly, was not a signatory to the Geneva accords in regards to the treatment of prisoners.

Egorka wrote:
So you were insinuating that I was being disingenuous.
Insinuating? You could have been candid. But it felt to me as delibirate twisting of words for one reason or another.
I thought I was being candid. Ah well, water over the dam. Are we still friends? :)

Best regards,

Gorque

User avatar
Egorka
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 12 May 2012 20:21
Location: Moscow

Re: Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Post by Egorka » 06 Jun 2012 09:24

Gorque wrote:Hi Igor:
Hi!
I'll try. :)
During the negotiations, the Germans wanted to surrender to the Western Allies, yet keep on fighting the Soviets in order to buy additional time for civilians and soldiers to retreat to the lands slated for Western Allied occupation. Monty (and later on Eisenhower) would not have any of this. The Germans in the lands specified by the May 4 agreement had to cease fighting by 8:00 on May 5. This included the Soviets, which was all well and good as there wasn't any Soviets on Bornholm, or for that matter Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein or any of the other lands mentioned.
Kind of... So, in your opinion, what implication does it have to our discussion?
The German Navy, on the other hand, was another matter as it was still active in the evacuations in the Baltic, which also meant it was engaged in actions against the Soviets. I hope this explanation is more concise.
The German Navy in the mentioned ares were to surrender too.
Precisely. The forces on Bornholm were in a legal limbo brought about by the British not venturing to Bornholm to accept the surrender.
Important here is that this legal limbo was ONLY there with respect to Germans expectations and wishes.
But formally there were no "legal limbo", as the Germans waived all rights with respect to interpretation of the surrender terms.
They were included in the May 4 agreement, which meant that the ships that had arrived there and those that will be arriving there, (the May 4 agreement was silent on ships in-transit) had to stay in Bornholm until the British arrived to accept their surrender. But if the British weren't going to accept their surrender, then they had every right to continue on to Denmark proper.
Germans did NOT know and were NOT SUPPOSED to know what Brits were in reality planning to do. Hence Germans were to obey, which they did not in Bornholm case.
Anyway, British intentions do not clear Germans from their legal responsibility. Again, it is not favorable to Germans, but, hey, it was unconditional surrender.
Monty did say that he would accept individual units into his lines, but not whole units, or something of that nature.
Yes. But this was said OUTSIDE of the surrender deal. Monty cut them some slack. And anyway, by accepting individual POWs, Monty did not violate the 4th May terms. Though, it does not mean that those individual German POWs did not violate it at the same time.
The Germans on Bornholm, by honoring the May 4 agreement by staying put, also had their POW status degraded when the Soviets arrived, as the Soviet Union, if my memory serves me correctly, was not a signatory to the Geneva accords in regards to the treatment of prisoners.
Germans captured on Bornholm did have POW status.
The deal with Geneva convention was only somewhat relevant in 1941. But USSR quickly declared that though not being formal signatory, it will adhere to Geneva convention. Later it also signed formally.
That is info without double checking the facts...
Are we still friends? :)
We have never been friends in the first place. :)
But I am grateful to you that you put my arguments to scrutiny - that is what I am here for. Thank you!

BR
Igor
Best regards
Igor

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Post by Gorque » 06 Jun 2012 15:49

Hi Igor:
Egorka wrote:
I'll try. :)
During the negotiations, the Germans wanted to surrender to the Western Allies, yet keep on fighting the Soviets in order to buy additional time for civilians and soldiers to retreat to the lands slated for Western Allied occupation. Monty (and later on Eisenhower) would not have any of this. The Germans in the lands specified by the May 4 agreement had to cease fighting by 8:00 on May 5. This included the Soviets, which was all well and good as there wasn't any Soviets on Bornholm, or for that matter Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein or any of the other lands mentioned.
Kind of... So, in your opinion, what implication does it have to our discussion?

See my reply of 04 Jun 2012, 14:57, my time.
Egorka wrote:
The German Navy, on the other hand, was another matter as it was still active in the evacuations in the Baltic, which also meant it was engaged in actions against the Soviets. I hope this explanation is more concise.
The German Navy in the mentioned ares were to surrender too.

That's correct, German Naval vessels were to surrender to C-in-C 21 Army group immediately, which they did.
Egorka wrote:
Precisely. The forces on Bornholm were in a legal limbo brought about by the British not venturing to Bornholm to accept the surrender.
Important here is that this legal limbo was ONLY there with respect to Germans expectations and wishes.
But formally there were no "legal limbo", as the Germans waived all rights with respect to interpretation of the surrender terms.
WRONG! The legal limbo is related to Bornholm only! Either Monty was a failure with his grade-school geography and thereby didn't realize that Bornholm was a part of Denmark which would mean that the Germans on Bornholm were never intended to be included in the agreement and thereby, never bound by it; or circumstances changed after the signing of the May 4 surrender thereby relegating Bornholm for Soviets occupation and then freeing the Germans on Bornholm from the surrender agreement as the terms of the agreement changed and no longer pertained to them. So once again, no violation of the terms of surrender.
Egorka wrote:
They were included in the May 4 agreement, which meant that the ships that had arrived there and those that will be arriving there, (the May 4 agreement was silent on ships in-transit) had to stay in Bornholm until the British arrived to accept their surrender. But if the British weren't going to accept their surrender, then they had every right to continue on to Denmark proper.
Germans did NOT know and were NOT SUPPOSED to know what Brits were in reality planning to do. Hence Germans were to obey, which they did not in Bornholm case.
Anyway, British intentions do not clear Germans from their legal responsibility. Again, it is not favorable to Germans, but, hey, it was unconditional surrender.
Your argument is flawed for it supposes that Bornholm was included in the May 4 agreement. The Germans in the area specified surrendered and abided by the terms of the surrender. Either Bornholm wasn't supposed to be included and was by mistake, in the May 4 agreement, or the terms of the surrender were altered, thereby negating its terms towards Bornholm . In either case it would mean that the Bornholm garrison was not bound by the May 4 agreement.
Egorka wrote:
Monty did say that he would accept individual units into his lines, but not whole units, or something of that nature.
Yes. But this was said OUTSIDE of the surrender deal. Monty cut them some slack. And anyway, by accepting individual POWs, Monty did not violate the 4th May terms. Though, it does not mean that those individual German POWs did not violate it at the same time.
WRONG! We've already covered this with the IMPLIED conditions granted by Montgomery at the time of the signing of the agreement.
Egorka wrote:
The Germans on Bornholm, by honoring the May 4 agreement by staying put, also had their POW status degraded when the Soviets arrived, as the Soviet Union, if my memory serves me correctly, was not a signatory to the Geneva accords in regards to the treatment of prisoners.
Germans captured on Bornholm did have POW status.
The deal with Geneva convention was only somewhat relevant in 1941. But USSR quickly declared that though not being formal signatory, it will adhere to Geneva convention. Later it also signed formally.
That is info without double checking the facts...

That's correct, the captured Bornholm garrison did become POW's of the Soviet Union, however, they did not have the POW protections as guaranteed by the Geneva Convention as the Soviet Union wasn't a signatory to it until AFTER the war.
Egorka wrote:
Are we still friends? :)
We have never been friends in the first place. :)
meh...suit yourself then.
Egorka wrote:But I am grateful to you that you put my arguments to scrutiny - that is what I am here for. Thank you!

Your welcome.


Best regards,

Gorque

User avatar
Egorka
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 12 May 2012 20:21
Location: Moscow

Re: Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Post by Egorka » 07 Jun 2012 16:44

Gorque wrote:See my reply of 04 Jun 2012, 14:57, my time.
Yes, I already said that I did not understand your post from 04 Jun 2012, 14:57. And asked you to explain. We are running in circle.
That's correct, German Naval vessels were to surrender to C-in-C 21 Army group immediately, which they did.
It is discussable , but it is another topic.
WRONG! The legal limbo is related to Bornholm only!
And that is what I said.
Either Monty was a failure with his grade-school geography and thereby didn't realize that Bornholm was a part of Denmark
No, he was not a failure.
which would mean that the Germans on Bornholm were never intended to be included in the agreement and thereby, never bound by it;
They were intended to be included.
or circumstances changed after the signing of the May 4 surrender thereby relegating Bornholm for Soviets occupation and then freeing the Germans on Bornholm from the surrender agreement as the terms of the agreement changed and no longer pertained to them.
Nothing changed, but IF it DID, then it was covered by clause 7.
So once again, no violation of the terms of surrender.
In the period from 08:00 5th May until morning 9th May (and even later), Germans in Bornholm area were hostile to one of the Allied powers (breach of clause 2) and did not follow orders of one of the Allied Powers (breach of clause 3).
Your argument is flawed for it supposes that Bornholm was included in the May 4 agreement.
I am not supposing anything.
Bornholm WAS included into the 4th May surrender.
No one questioned it except you.
...or the terms of the surrender were altered, thereby negating its terms towards Bornholm . In either case it would mean that the Bornholm garrison was not bound by the May 4 agreement.
Eisenhower said to OKW that Germans on Bornholm were bound and you say they were not... Who should I trust?
WRONG! We've already covered this with the IMPLIED conditions granted by Montgomery at the time of the signing of the agreement.
For all the "implied" stuff, Allies included word "UNCONDITIONAL" into the text. And then on top of that trew clause 7, which was made especially for Germans and guys like you, who would come later and start fishing for some ways around.
Best regards
Igor

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Post by Gorque » 07 Jun 2012 19:42

Egorka wrote:
Gorque wrote:See my reply of 04 Jun 2012, 14:57, my time.
Yes, I already said that I did not understand your post from 04 Jun 2012, 14:57. And asked you to explain. We are running in circle.
That's strange as I have no problem understanding what I wrote. Let's look at the discussion chronologically:
Egorka: But so far there are NO indications that term "Allied Powers" in the surrender text does not include USSR!

Gorque:There's the rub. I could understand including the Soviets in the term "Allied Powers" in meaning no offensive actions were to be taken against the forces of the Soviet Union for that could be translated as a surrender to the Western Allies but allowing the German armies to continue hostilities with the Soviet Union, something which was discussed at the meetings between Monty and the Germans and which Monty flatly refused. But then there's the question of why would the Soviets be allowed to take into captivity any Germans on the island of Bornholm when the May 4 document specifically includes Bornholm in 21 Army group's responsibility. In this case, including the Soviet Union in the term "Allied Powers" would make no sense and would run counter to the May 4 terms.

Egorka:What? I cann't make sense of it. Can you, please, re-phrase?

Gorque:I'll try. :)

During the negotiations, the Germans wanted to surrender to the Western Allies, yet keep on fighting the Soviets in order to buy additional time for civilians and soldiers to retreat to the lands slated for Western Allied occupation. Monty (and later on Eisenhower) would not have any of this. The Germans in the lands specified by the May 4 agreement had to cease fighting by 8:00 on May 5. This included the Soviets, which was all well and good as there wasn't any Soviets on Bornholm, or for that matter Denmark, Schleswig-Holstein or any of the other lands mentioned. The German Navy, on the other hand, was another matter as it was still active in the evacuations in the Baltic, which also meant it was engaged in actions against the Soviets. I hope this explanation is more concise.

Egorka:Kind of... So, in your opinion, what implication does it have to our discussion?

Gorque:See my reply of 04 Jun 2012, 14:57, my time.

Egorka: Yes, I already said that I did not understand your post from 04 Jun 2012, 14:57. And asked you to explain. We are running in circle.

There. Now it's a full circle. :D
Egorka wrote:
That's correct, German Naval vessels were to surrender to C-in-C 21 Army group immediately, which they did.
It is discussable , but it is another topic.
Suit yourself, however it is specifically mentioned in point 1 of the May 4 surrender agreement.
Egorka wrote:
Either Monty was a failure with his grade-school geography and thereby didn't realize that Bornholm was a part of Denmark
No, he was not a failure.
That's the problem with parsing my sentences, it results in arriving at mistaken conclusions. The point of the above was to indicate that including Bornholm in the May 4 Surrender agreement was a mistake, which is the case as per the Milwaukee Journal article of May 30, 1945. See page 3 column 8. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 98,5511921
Egorka wrote:
which would mean that the Germans on Bornholm were never intended to be included in the agreement and thereby, never bound by it;
They were intended to be included.
See the reply immediately above.
Egorka wrote:
or circumstances changed after the signing of the May 4 surrender thereby relegating Bornholm for Soviets occupation and then freeing the Germans on Bornholm from the surrender agreement as the terms of the agreement changed and no longer pertained to them.
Nothing changed, but IF it DID, then it was covered by clause 7.
Clause 7 pertains ONLY to meanings and interpretations, not changes in the terms of the agreement. IF the agreement was altered, then it would no longer pertain to those who hadn't already surrendered.
Egorka wrote:
So once again, no violation of the terms of surrender.
In the period from 08:00 5th May until morning 9th May (and even later), Germans in Bornholm area were hostile to one of the Allied powers (breach of clause 2) and did not follow orders of one of the Allied Powers (breach of clause 3).
The Bornholm garrison was not covered by the agreement due to the mistake on the part of Montgomery. Bornholm was not within his purview.
Egorka wrote:
Your argument is flawed for it supposes that Bornholm was included in the May 4 agreement.
I am not supposing anything.
Bornholm WAS included into the 4th May surrender.
No one questioned it except you.
The newspaper article I provided states that Bornholm was slated to be occupied by the Soviet Union. Thereby, my statement still holds true.
Egorka wrote:
...or the terms of the surrender were altered, thereby negating its terms towards Bornholm . In either case it would mean that the Bornholm garrison was not bound by the May 4 agreement.
Eisenhower said to OKW that Germans on Bornholm were bound and you say they were not... Who should I trust?
The Germans thought that Bornholm WAS included. All Eisenhower did was ask the Soviets for permission to send a delegation to accept their surrender. If they WERE included in the surrender of May 4, then Eisenhower wouldn't have had to have asked for Soviet permission.
Egorka wrote:
WRONG! We've already covered this with the IMPLIED conditions granted by Montgomery at the time of the signing of the agreement.
For all the "implied" stuff, Allies included word "UNCONDITIONAL" into the text. And then on top of that trew clause 7, which was made especially for Germans and guys like you, who would come later and start fishing for some ways around.
I've already provided you with the corroborated evidence of the implied conditions agreed to at the signing.

Trackhead M2
Member
Posts: 1004
Joined: 24 Mar 2012 16:48
Location: North Utica, IL

Re: Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Post by Trackhead M2 » 07 Jun 2012 19:47

Dear All,
This thread reads like a US Supreme Court brief on a tax law issue. Did anyone start shooting again after May 4, 1945? If not it is all just skilled rhetoric.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”