Question on German surrender to Montgomery on 4 May 1945

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
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 21:35

Trackhead M2 wrote:Did anyone start shooting again after May 4, 1945?
Hello!

The Germans continued hostilites against an "Allied Power" (USSR) in Bornholm area after 08:00 5/May 45.
I called it a breach of the Montgomery's surrender agreement. Gorque disagreed.
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 » 07 Jun 2012 21:48

Gorque, listen ,man. Regardless what Milwaukee journal says Bornholm was included. It is not because I say so, but because EVERYONE says so. I am telling you it is pointless to discuss as it has been done by a number of historians.

Then what is the deal with "implied" staff? Monty promissed German to accept individual surrenders? Perfect. No problem! So what is the big deal?

Your last comment about clause 7: what part of word UNCONDITIONAL don't you understand?
For Allies it was paramount to acheive specifically unconditional surrender (due to historical reasons with WWI). The rest is just secondary details.
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 » 07 Jun 2012 22:16

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.
Well, I still cannot make sense of it. Maybe it is just my deficiency in English grammar... I think it is because you are mixing the events together.

What Ike and Monty refused was the German offer to ally against the USSR.

The Allied Powers had made, among others, forehand agreements that:
- surrender can only be unconditional;
- the after war division line across Germany to define British, American and soviet occcupational sectors;
- regardless of the previous point, during the fighting, the enemy will be engaged "where it has been encountered", this is due to military considerations;

So why should Ike have any principal objection for some Germans on Bornholm to be taken POW by Russians???
I am not saying that they intentionally included USSR into Allied Powers. But they ended up doing because there was NO other way arround without violating the forehand agreements between the three Allies.
Do not you wory, the surrender agreement text was written with care.
Best regards
Igor

Aber
Member
Posts: 769
Joined: 05 Jan 2010 21:43

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

Post by Aber » 07 Jun 2012 22:27

Except for clarifying whether Bornholm was included in Denmark! :D

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 23:47

Aber wrote:Except for clarifying whether Bornholm was included in Denmark! :D
Danish territory extends over 406 islands. You don't suggest that all of them should have been mentioned separately, do you?
Best regards
Igor

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1055
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

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

Post by Gorque » 08 Jun 2012 13:43

Hi Igor:
Egorka wrote:Gorque, listen ,man. Regardless what Milwaukee journal says Bornholm was included. It is not because I say so, but because EVERYONE says so. I am telling you it is pointless to discuss as it has been done by a number of historians.

I hope you'll pardon me for not falling in line with your "follow the herd" argument, otherwise we'd still be believing in a terran centered solar system.
Egorka wrote:Then what is the deal with "implied" staff? Monty promissed German to accept individual surrenders? Perfect. No problem! So what is the big deal?
Then we finally agree that there were implied provisions in the agreement. Good.
Egorka wrote:Your last comment about clause 7: what part of word UNCONDITIONAL don't you understand?
For Allies it was paramount to acheive specifically unconditional surrender (due to historical reasons with WWI). The rest is just secondary details.
And what part of "meanings and interpretations" are you having difficulty in comprehending?

Best regards,

Gorque

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1055
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

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

Post by Gorque » 08 Jun 2012 14:05

H Igor:
Egorka wrote:
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.
Well, I still cannot make sense of it. Maybe it is just my deficiency in English grammar...
This is, unfortunately, highly possible. :(
Egorka wrote:I think it is because you are mixing the events together.
No, that's not my intention.

Egorka wrote:What Ike and Monty refused was the German offer to ally against the USSR.
Not exactly. It was to refuse to offer a separate surrender, thereby allowing the Germans to continue their struggle against the Soviets in order to extricate as many of their troops and civilians from the areas slated for Soviet occupation.
Egorka wrote:The Allied Powers had made, among others, forehand agreements that:
- surrender can only be unconditional;
- the after war division line across Germany to define British, American and soviet occcupational sectors;
- regardless of the previous point, during the fighting, the enemy will be engaged "where it has been encountered", this is due to military considerations;
I agree with points 1 and 2, however, the third point was violated by the Western allies by allowing German troops through their lines.
Egorka wrote:So why should Ike have any principal objection for some Germans on Bornholm to be taken POW by Russians???
I'd opine this was due to the confusion caused by including Bornholm with Denmark when Bornholm was already included in the Soviet occupation zone. And I wouldn't refer to it as an "objection", but more as an accommodation by Ike in order to correct an error in the May 4 agreement. My opinion, of course.
Egorka wrote:I am not saying that they intentionally included USSR into Allied Powers. But they ended up doing because there was NO other way arround without violating the forehand agreements between the three Allies.

I'm nearly certain that the term "Allied Powers" included the Soviet Union.
Egorka wrote:Do not you wory, the surrender agreement text was written with care.
I strongly disagree for if that was so then the May 4 agreement would have included a caveat for the naval and merchant marine units already underway regarding their final destinations and there would have been no confusion regarding the disposition of the German garrison on Bornholm.

Best regards,

Gorque

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1055
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

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

Post by Gorque » 08 Jun 2012 14:12

Hi Aber:
Aber wrote:Except for clarifying whether Bornholm was included in Denmark! :D
I agree. At the very least Monty, providing he knew of it in advance, should have specified which parts of Denmark were not within his purview, as he did during the pre-surrender negotiations regarding German forces in Mecklenburg.

Best regards,

Gorque

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1055
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

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

Post by Gorque » 08 Jun 2012 14:18

Hi Igor:
Egorka wrote:
Aber wrote:Except for clarifying whether Bornholm was included in Denmark! :D
Danish territory extends over 406 islands. You don't suggest that all of them should have been mentioned separately, do you?
Please correct if I'm wrong for I'm talking out of my behind right now, but I'm guessing that the majority of the 406 islands were included within the Western Allies zone. How difficult would it have been to include a clause such as 'except for Bornholm and its immediate surrounding islands' ?

Best regards,

Gorque

Aber
Member
Posts: 769
Joined: 05 Jan 2010 21:43

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

Post by Aber » 08 Jun 2012 17:37

Gorque wrote: I'd opine this was due to the confusion caused by including Bornholm with Denmark when Bornholm was already included in the Soviet occupation zone.
Gorque
I'm sure you meant 'Soviet area of operations', not 'occupation zone' :)

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 » 08 Jun 2012 22:01

Gorque wrote:Hi Igor:
Egorka wrote:Gorque, listen ,man. Regardless what Milwaukee journal says Bornholm was included. It is not because I say so, but because EVERYONE says so. I am telling you it is pointless to discuss as it has been done by a number of historians.

I hope you'll pardon me for not falling in line with your "follow the herd" argument, otherwise we'd still be believing in a terran centered solar system.
Egorka wrote:Then what is the deal with "implied" staff? Monty promissed German to accept individual surrenders? Perfect. No problem! So what is the big deal?
Then we finally agree that there were implied provisions in the agreement. Good.
Egorka wrote:Your last comment about clause 7: what part of word UNCONDITIONAL don't you understand?
For Allies it was paramount to acheive specifically unconditional surrender (due to historical reasons with WWI). The rest is just secondary details.
And what part of "meanings and interpretations" are you having difficulty in comprehending?

Best regards,

Gorque
Hello,
I think I am running out of batteries... Ok, I try one last time.

Bornholm by any definishion is included, as it is part of Denmark.
EVERYONE, whose opinion matters in this issue, had the same opinion in 1945 (and now). It is not my opinion but Germans', Danes', Brits', SHAEF's. So there is nothibg there for you to fish for.

The one thing, that was in the open, was the question of including Soviets into "Allied Powers". This was purely mine thesis, which I have not seen being covered in any of the sources I've read about Bornholm.
But you seem to have accepted it.

I am gratefull to you for the fruitfull and stimulating discussion! Thank you.
Please correct if I'm wrong for I'm talking out of my behind right now, but I'm guessing that the majority of the 406 islands were included within the Western Allies zone. How difficult would it have been to include a clause such as 'except for Bornholm and its immediate surrounding islands' ?
I don't know how those 406 islands are devided, but if you actually take a carefull look on the map, you will see, that roughly THIRD of the Danish territory ( including the capital city) lays on the Eastern part of the line defining app. Western Allies and Soviet operational zones (draw a line North from Lubeck).
So as I told you, formally whole Denmark was not completely cleared forehand With respect to operational zones and post war European planning.
Then we finally agree that there were implied provisions in the agreement. Good.
What is the "implied" staff anyway? If you mean Monty's words, that he will accept surrender of individual soldiers, then it was NOT, as you put it, "implied" in the 4th may surrender.
Simply because 4th May surrender was written to adhere to an instruction from the Combined Chiefs of Staff from Aug 1944, which covered possible capitulations by German forces surrendering as units through their commanders.
The individual surrenders were naturally outside of the scope and were legally conducted not through the 4th May agreement, but through common law of war.
Best regards
Igor

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1055
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

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

Post by Gorque » 12 Jun 2012 14:34

Hi Igor:
Egorka wrote:
Hello,
Bornholm by any definishion is included, as it is part of Denmark.
No argument there on the political aspects of Bornholm, only whether or not it was within Monty's purview, which the historical record has shown that it was not.
Egorka wrote:EVERYONE, whose opinion matters in this issue, had the same opinion in 1945 (and now). It is not my opinion but Germans', Danes', Brits', SHAEF's. So there is nothibg there for you to fish for.
Who are these "EVERYONE" that you keep referring to? And as for the opinions given in 1945, may I remind you that there was quite a bit of confusion as to who's 'sphere of operation's' (Thank you Aber) Bornholm was to be included in, otherwise the British would have landed a delegation, Eisenhower wouldn't have asked for permission from the Soviets to do the same, and the German's wouldn't have asked for clarification as to who to capitulate to.
Egorka wrote:I am gratefull to you for the fruitfull and stimulating discussion! Thank you.
You're quite welcome and a return thank you from me as well for enlightening me to a little known aspect of the war's end.
Egorka wrote:What is the "implied" staff anyway? If you mean Monty's words, that he will accept surrender of individual soldiers, then it was NOT, as you put it, "implied" in the 4th may surrender.
The unwritten understanding that the surrender to Monty was a separate surrender to the Brits, which was not written into the document:
Shortly before midnight Friedeburg returned from his negotiations with Montgomery and reported at once on the salient features of his conference. The Field-Marshal, he said, had not rejected the proposed separate surrender - had not, that is, demanded simultaneous unconditional surrender on all fronts including the Russian.
(p. 457-58)

to which you countered:
Whatever Germans wanted and expected is of NO relevance to the question raised. Germans had their own adgenda and followed it. This though makes no difference as far as they had been informed about the conditions, which they were. But instead of following the conditions (i.e. all 7 clauses) the Krigmarine leadership gave orders to continue armed resistence on Bornholm, which clearly violates clause 2 of condition.
But as since has been proven, namely that Bornholm was outside of Monty's purview, none of the subsequent actions occurring on Bornholm were in violation of the May 4 agreement. And secondly that Monty would accept the surrender of unorganized troops through his lines from areas outside his purview, also unwritten.

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 » 12 Jun 2012 22:21

For God's sake! You have NOT proven that Bornholm was not covered by The 4th May surrender. It was!
"EVERYONE" is - I'm saying it for the third time, really - the British, the Danes, the Germans and to conclude Mr.Eisenhower who answered to OKW on exactly the same question you keep on bringing. There was no one in May 1945 who was sharing your opinion.
And secondly that Monty would accept the surrender of unorganized troops through his lines from areas outside his purview, also unwritten.
The surrender of unorganized troops legally is NOT AT ALL part of the 4th May deal.
What do you do when an enemy soldier is comming to you with hands up? You take him POW, that is what. What else? Send him back so that he can shoot you later?
The individual surrenders were accepted by every side from day ONE of the war! It has nothing to do with particular 4th of May surrender.
Best regards
Igor

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1055
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

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

Post by Gorque » 13 Jun 2012 13:58

Hi Igor:
Egorka wrote:For God's sake! You have NOT proven that Bornholm was not covered by The 4th May surrender. It was!

You are doubly wrong. Bornholm was NOT covered by the May 4 agreement and I HAVE proven it to you.
Egorka wrote:"EVERYONE" is - I'm saying it for the third time, really - the British, the Danes, the Germans and to conclude Mr.Eisenhower who answered to OKW on exactly the same question you keep on bringing. There was no one in May 1945 who was sharing your opinion.
You can keep saying/writing "EVERYONE" for as long as you like, however the historical record runs counter to what you are writing/saying based upon the evidence I've previously presented to you. So once again, who is this "EVERYONE"?
Egorka wrote:The surrender of unorganized troops legally is NOT AT ALL part of the 4th May deal.
What do you do when an enemy soldier is comming to you with hands up? You take him POW, that is what. What else? Send him back so that he can shoot you later?
The individual surrenders were accepted by every side from day ONE of the war! It has nothing to do with particular 4th of May surrender.
That was quite disingenuous of you to snip the first part of the reply. Based upon your editing, I take it then that you agree with the first part of my reply, which would also mean that you agree that there were "implied" conditions to the agreement as well? Additionally, there is NO requirement to accept the surrender of unorganized troops who sought to surrender from outside of Montgomery's purview. As proof of this, see Eisenhower's demand that, I'm paraphrasing here, 'he would close his lines and order his soldiers to fire upon any soldier seeking to surrender to his forces'. :wink:

Best regards,

Gorque

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1055
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

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

Post by Gorque » 13 Jun 2012 14:53

Hi Igor:

As further proof that not "EVERYONE" was on the same page regarding Bornholm, I've dug up these snippets to add to the evidence I've already presented in disclaiming your assertion.
But Marshall and Eisenhower, whom Truman upheld, once more refused to be distracted by what the former called "purely political purposes." Eisenhower again consulted the Russians, who undoubtedly were thinking politically, and agreed to their request not to move east. He then, to the consternation of the British, cooperated with the Soviets in their strenous and successful effort to occupy the strategic Danish Baltic island of Bornholm just ahead of Allied troops.
(p 102, The Iron Curtain: Chrchill, America, and the Origins of the Cold War, Fraser J. Harbutt)

and
One part of the country endured particular hardship. The island of Bornholm, situated to the East in the Baltic Sea, was liberated by the Soviet Union because Montgomery and his superior, General Eisenhower, did not have a clear understanding with Moscow covering that particular island. Therefore, they hesitated to send an officer to receive the capitulation of the local German commander.
(pp 193-3, A Short History of Denmark in the 20th Century, Bo Lidegaard)

Based on the above, I'd say that thoroughly debunks the 'Follow the herd' argument you've been promulgating.

Best regards,

Gorque

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”