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 » 13 Jun 2012 22:35

Hi, Gorque.
I am giving you info from the sources specialized on the subject of Bornholm affair in 1945 and you give me blur quotes from book which spent one-two short paragraphs on the subject.
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"?
Re-read my answer. EVERYONE is everyone. Every side involved.
Or you want me to write down the names of Danish government officials, the names of all the British officers in mission "Denmark", all the Germans officers on Bornholm and Eisenhower's full name?
BTW, Russians also considered Bornholm to be included.
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?
No, I do not agree with the first part. But I omitted the answer as I can not keep replying same again and again...
Additionally, there is NO requirement to accept the surrender of unorganized troops who sought to surrender from outside of Montgomery's purview.
Right, accepting surrender of unorganized troops is not a requirement nor mandatory. So what?
But it was happening way before May 4th as well as after and was natural constitution of Laws and Customs of War. I already told you that Montgomery's surrender LEGALLY covered only ORGANIZED surrender.
The individual surrenders could still continue irrespective of where the surrendered soldier fought initially (West or East). And this formally would not be a violation of agreements between Big Three. Informally it was of course a way around.
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 » 13 Jun 2012 23:46

Gorque, you should read this article by Bent Jensen in Scandinavian Journal of History. It can most probably be accessed for free from your library. That is how I got it.
Pay attention to chapter 4 (Western Allies and Bornholm) and to the phrase on page 227 saying: "act of surrender to Montgomery covering all German forces on Danish territory, including Bornholm".

Soviet Occupation of a New Type: The Long Liberation of the Danish Island of Bornholm 1944-1946
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 0050156523
Best regards
Igor

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1056
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

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

Post by Gorque » 14 Jun 2012 13:34

Hi Igor:
Egorka wrote:Gorque, you should read this article by Bent Jensen in Scandinavian Journal of History. It can most probably be accessed for free from your library. That is how I got it.
Pay attention to chapter 4 (Western Allies and Bornholm) and to the phrase on page 227 saying: "act of surrender to Montgomery covering all German forces on Danish territory, including Bornholm".

Soviet Occupation of a New Type: The Long Liberation of the Danish Island of Bornholm 1944-1946
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 0050156523
You should read this newspaper article from the N.Y. Times from May 10, 1945 entitled Swift Soviet Dash Liberates Prague. It's a pay site for the archived articles but it's loaded with great information from the reporters of the time as it was happening.

From the article:
Bornholm was supposed to surrender simultaneously with the German forces in Denmark, but it so happened that the Bornholm garrison did not belong to the forces mentioned in the original capitulation order and so was heavily bombed by the Russians.
Best regards,

Gorque

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1056
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

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

Post by Gorque » 14 Jun 2012 13:59

Hi Igor:
Egorka wrote: I am giving you info from the sources specialized on the subject of Bornholm affair in 1945 and you give me blur quotes from book which spent one-two short paragraphs on the subject.
You're too funny Igor. I was wondering when you would stoop to the tactic of claiming that your sources are superior to mine. :lol:
Egorka wrote:Re-read my answer. EVERYONE is everyone. Every side involved.
Or you want me to write down the names of Danish government officials, the names of all the British officers in mission "Denmark", all the Germans officers on Bornholm and Eisenhower's full name?
BTW, Russians also considered Bornholm to be included.
Might I suggest you re-read mine as well and the quotes that I've provided you, especially the one regarding Eisenhower and the Soviets. When you do, you'll note that they did not agree with the May 4 surrender and therefore would not be included in the term EVERYONE that you wrongly bandy about.
Egorka wrote:No, I do not agree with the first part. But I omitted the answer as I can not keep replying same again and again...

And yet you have no reservations about replying same again and again to the second part of the reply. Hmmm. I stand by my observation.
Egorka wrote:Right, accepting surrender of unorganized troops is not a requirement nor mandatory. So what?

Sigh, ...one more time. It was an implied condition of the May 4 surrender that Monty would accept the surrender of enemy soldiers crossing into his purview.
Egorka wrote:But it was happening way before May 4th as well as after and was natural constitution of Laws and Customs of War. I already told you that Montgomery's surrender LEGALLY covered only ORGANIZED surrender.
The implied portion also covered those individual soldiers entering from areas outside of Montgomery's purview.
Egorka wrote:The individual surrenders could still continue irrespective of where the surrendered soldier fought initially (West or East). And this formally would not be a violation of agreements between Big Three. Informally it was of course a way around.
Wrong! The soldiers were to surrender to the respective Allied Power slated to be in control of the area.

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 » 14 Jun 2012 19:46

Oh, well. No one can say I didn't try.
Thank you for discussion.

Gorque, do you really not understand the difference between academic research and an NYT article?
Best regards
Igor

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 » 14 Jun 2012 21:05

Egorka wrote:Oh, well. No one can say I didn't try.
Thank you for discussion.

Gorque, do you really not understand the difference between academic research and an NYT article?
Dear Big E,
Why wouldn't the New York Times be a source for research to get information? Some bibliographies in books cite to magazine and newspaper articles as source materials. Is the article in question not an account but an OP/ED piece which contains opinion as well as facts? If it is, any commentary and opinion advocating a position skews the vaiue as a source of facts. Recent histories provided by Japan to school children have caused issues with China over the handling of telling the students about the war.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1056
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

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

Post by Gorque » 14 Jun 2012 21:42

NY Times article:
NYTimes Bornholm.pdf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1056
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

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

Post by Gorque » 14 Jun 2012 21:52

Hi Igor:
Egorka wrote:Oh, well. No one can say I didn't try.
Thank you for discussion.

Your welcome and thank you as well. :)
Egorka wrote:Gorque, do you really not understand the difference between academic research and an NYT article?
I'm sure that the author's research is impeccable, as I've viewed a translated synopsis (with some difficulty) of the aforementioned article, its the conclusions that the author reaches that are open to debate, as was also concluded by the remarks in the synopsis. :)

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 » 14 Jun 2012 23:50

Trackhead M2 wrote:
Egorka wrote:Oh, well. No one can say I didn't try.
Thank you for discussion.

Gorque, do you really not understand the difference between academic research and an NYT article?
Dear Big E,
Why wouldn't the New York Times be a source for research to get information? Some bibliographies in books cite to magazine and newspaper articles as source materials. Is the article in question not an account but an OP/ED piece which contains opinion as well as facts? If it is, any commentary and opinion advocating a position skews the vaiue as a source of facts. Recent histories provided by Japan to school children have caused issues with China over the handling of telling the students about the war.
Strike Swiftly,
TH-M2
Anything can be a sorce of information. But it in noway mean that any source equally valuable depending on the subject.

In this particular case NYT article from May 10th 1945 can not be used as a proof of any sort. It could although be used as a source on f.ex. subject of how press covered Bornholm affair. But Gorque is trying to use it as some kind of proof of his point.

I can easily produce dosens of news paper articles which whould argue a point opposite to of NYT. But what value would it have? Minimal value.
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 » 15 Jun 2012 00:01

Gorque wrote: ...as I've viewed a translated synopsis (with some difficulty) of the aforementioned article, its the conclusions that the author reaches that are open to debate, as was also concluded by the remarks in the synopsis.
I am lost. What do mean by Translated synopsis? The article I linked was written in English. There is nothing to translate.
For your information, this article is extract of the monograph by the same author. So there is really much more info than you can read the article alone.
Best regards
Igor

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1056
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

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

Post by Gorque » 15 Jun 2012 13:57

Hi Igor:
Egorka wrote:I am lost. What do mean by Translated synopsis? The article I linked was written in English. There is nothing to translate.
For your information, this article is extract of the monograph by the same author. So there is really much more info than you can read the article alone.

Your link requires me to purchase the article for $ 36.00 US or it gives me the option to recommend it to my local library, which, at present, is under financial constraints. :( What I found was this synopsis of Bent Jensen's research here: http://e-tidsskrifter.dk/ojs/index.php/ ... 4515/27775 and was translated in Firefox (I tried the Chrome as well, but it returned even worse results) as thus:
Bent Jensen: The long liberation. Bornholm occupied and liberated 1945-1946. (Odense University Press, 1996). 345 p, 250 kr

The subject of Bent Jensen's book is one of the most fluctuating and dramatic chapters in the history of Bornholm, nernlig the Soviet liberation / occupation of klippeoen, launched air strikes on 7 and 8 May 1945 and completed approx. a scar later, when the Russian troops cleared his throat island.

The drama took place during the period between ophoret pa the heat and the beginning of the Cold War. Therefore the book, in an international perspective, also an interesting contribution to this period's history.

The author makes the first any question that the Danish public has circled about the last 50 years: 1 Why was the Soviet and not British forces who came to Bornholm in May 1945? Second Why was the Soviet forces said lasngc and saw large numbers of pa island? and 3 Why did the Russians island said unexpectedly and quickly in the spring of 1946? Responses formar author largely to afdaskke a systematic afsogning of relevant British, American, Swedish, Danish and Russian

The deposition of the files in the respective countries' archives fort cells a part of Bornholmssporgsmalets significance for the respective countries: for smastaten Bornholm, Denmark was the paramount issue in 1945-46 in relation to the mighty Soviet Union. For Sweden, the Russian presence pa Bornholm highly troubling. Britain enbetragtede Denmark as its intcresseomrade Bornholmssporgsmalet and followed with great interest. For the United States was sporgsmalet pretty remote, but General Eisenhower befattede in his capacity as overstkommanderende for SHAEF problem in the drama first phase. Last but not least, parades matter of course the local pa Bornholm. It was bathing the general population, OENS elected officials and the government's local representative, the county magistrate. Bent Jensen's book is one in besides, successful attempts pa investigating all these levels and merge them together. He shows how the decisions and considerations in German, British, American, Danish and Soviet departments and staffs had direct implications for the common Bornholm.

The Soviet Union was the drama hovedaktor. Detergents therefore regrettable that the author does not fully udstnekning first became archive access here. Still seems the Soviet behavior quite well documented. Bent Jensen sandsynliggor that seen from Moscow in a sense, found a kaplob place on Denmark in the war's final phase, although it acknowledged that Denmark was a British interesseomrade. Moscow wanted in some udstrtekning to take part in the liberation of Denmark in order to fa indtlydelse pa post-war developments in the area. Montgomery appeared to Liibeck, 2 May 1945, however, precluded any possible. Russian frcmrykning at Jutland. But there was stacligva. 'K Bornholm!

Already in the summer of 1944 pointed to a Soviet memorandum pa Bornholm as a nyitig military base. Bornholm was not viewed in isolation but in
Page 368

conjunction with the Danish stranding you, Kiel Canal and South Schleswig. Painted was to reinforce the Soviet security ostersoomradet. Since the war evolution took off around the turn of the year 1944-45 was sporgsmalet about the liberation of Danrnark more patraengende: How did Soviet troops take part in the 'beginning with a Bornholm, "as it was called in a memorandum to Molotov in December 1944. After Soviet troops in March 1945 had taken the German fladebaseKohlberg south of Bornholm, anbefalededen Soviet foreign service that the Red Army would fill Bornholm.Argumentet was purely political, that it could secure Moscow indflydelsepa developments in post-war Denmark and pa country's foreign policy orientation.

The seventh and 8 May 1945 Bornholm was exposed to Russian air raids and dropping leaflets urged the German commander to surrender to the Russians. It refused the German commandant, simply because that Bent Jensen anforer it was contrary to his express orders and formally also against bestemmmelserne the delkapitulation which the Germans had arrangements with Montgomery with effect from 5 May on the morning. First night of the 8th and 9 May stepped totalkapitulationen into force, and when Russian troops arrived in the island of Bornholm in the afternoon of the 9th May, the German troops surrendered without loosening a shot.

1 day from 5 to 9 May, efforts through various channels and lines of command from bathing the head of Special Forces in Denmark, Ole Lippmann, the German commander pa Bornholm and prefetch Stemann pa reformatting British to send just a little militaerdetachement to Bornholm to receive the German surrender. But all inquiries to General Dewing, who was chief of the British militaermission in Denmark, were unsuccessful. Not because he and the British were uninterested in Bornholm, but because it overstbefalende for SHAEF, General Eisenhower, back in april 1945 had decided not to send troops to Bornholm without prior consent from the Russian side. As Bent Jensen paviser, was Eisenhower's reluctance, that there were EMI, whether an actual agreement with the Russians on Bornholm, but the general accepted Bornholm location in Russian operationsomrade. Eisenhower wanted not to challenge the Russians unnecessarily. Renewed contacts with the Eisenhower between 5 and 8 May not be fundamentally altered his attitude. Which contributed to Eisenhower's hesitation pointing Bent Jensen also pa that Frihedsradets envoy in Moscow, Dossing, SHAEF had given rise to the inference that there was actually pagaet Danish-Russian negotiations on a Russian liberation of the island. Bent Jensen does not have much good to say about Dossing, even after it had been the liberation government's official embassy in Moscow. The source material seems to retfserdiggore author's characterization of Dossings work, which was marked by equal parts of ignorance and excessive devotion to Moscow.

Bent Jensen is in general not impressed by the Danish Government HANDLING of Bornholm case. Until the Soviet establishment pa Bornholm, he fa eye pa redeeming moments, eg. the Western Allies restraint, but then, the Danish government's (lack of) HANDLING gennemsyretaf excessive smastatspolitik. Foreign Christmas Moller father no pluses in the grade book, and efterfolgerenGustav Rasmussen star forward almost like a vain hare, not daring to seize upon the opportunities for an unloading Bornholmssporgsmalet actually good for. The Danish regeringgik
Page 369

geringgiksa very pa cat paws that not even daring to raise the issue directly with Moscow. The government lsenede in place up against the British, who in reality did not accord EJornholm no vital strategic importance, even if you are interested follow the proceedings. The Danish tactic was consistently fa-chain a request to Moscow for a Russian withdrawal, together with a British withdrawal from Denmark. It was the Danish government's position that no matte 'gores difference' pa befrierne.Briterne became increasingly irritated by the Danish petitions for a British Forchromning of Danrnark and was at all surprised the Danish passivity towards Moscow. Even a smooth Russian Forchromning from northern Norway after Norwegian request did not give the Danish government an opportunity to forsogenoget similar to Bornholm vedkommende.Da the Danish government endeligi February 1946 directly asked Moscow for a Forchromning, it happened naermestefter British pressure.

Although the Danish Government to the public the impression that negotiations with the Russians was extremely delicate and difficult, Bent Jensen shows that it was by no means tilfaddet. The Russians cleared his throat island without any fuss, according to Bent Jensen because the Russians probably under the impression of bathing the Danish domestic politics and the major political developments had come to the conclusion that bessettelsen of Bornholm did not give the habede political gain. Instead preferring Moscow on goodwill romningen could medfore. The Russians were apparently not attached any conditions to which heist romningen, yet refused the Danish government after joining the NATO consistently giving allied forces access to the island in any form as a heist. For example. rejected the Danish government said late as 1982 to allow a U.S. military tier orchestra entertain pa klippeoen!

Bathing Russian, Danish and the British government expressed itself for various tactical reasons only begnenset extent publicly about Bornholmssporgsmalet and as almost always with wool in the mouth. As Bent Jensen paviser, gave ground for allehande assumptions and theories, not least among Bornholm. who had the problem completely in pa life. Also the Government's spot repnesentant, prefect Stemann who was russernc assume the title of 'governor', became increasingly desperate, swim over the manglcnde information from K.obenhavn and the government's inaction against Moscow. Stemann sat like a burr pa to his superiors in Copenhagen. In his reports he wondered says straight out of Kobenhavns dispositions and offered to constantly ask her qualifications to available. Virtually matt he nojes to do with his "sauce pot" fool Kobenhavn sometimes gently tried to mark Bornholm tilhorsforhold at various events and visits pa Bornholm. A main ingredient in the arrangements was pompous (and probably pretty much well-intentioned) bilateral to speak. The Danish representatives praised Stalin and the Bargain arms, and the Russian commander said something pient on the common struggle against fascism.

The fraternal tone despite sa Bornholmers like the Russian troops away, and Bent Jensen portrays the small and big problems that the Russian tilstedeva.Melsemed approx. 9,000 man medfortefor locals. The Russians suffered a umadelig thirst, and the German soldiers loved the Danish flodeskumskager.Tyverier occurred isasr was armbandsureeftertragtede and there was enkeltetilfaelde of voldtttgt. But all in all, leaving the writer knowing that there was a relatively disciplined occupation and that
On page 370

the relationship between Russian troops and lokalbefolkningi al overwhelmingly was peaceful. A contributory factor was that the Russian troops remained in isolated forkegninger.

In his book on Bornholm, Bent Jensen delivered a solid and well written work that has both a logical europe, a national and a local dimension. The book's consistent and cash analysis sastter many things in place. Kontanthed is a virtue, but it contains also the risk of simplification, and it appears notifying the author a few times due to it.

In what could be called a myth crushing Section characterizes Bent Jensen, for example. delkapitulationsaftalen of 4 May is utterly unambiguous, also in relation to Bornholm. He categorically rejects the interpretation that the kapitulationsaftalen on 4 May meant Bornholm surrender, because surrender to Montgomery did not include the German war navy, as the garrison pa Bornholm heard under. Bent Jensen relies here on the wording of kapitulationsaftalen, which speaks of "all German armed forces ... This is two include all naval ships in disse områder "(Holland, Northwest Germany and Denmark). For Bent Jensen's saledes no doubt that krigsmarinen in the area was covered by delkapitulationen, and moreover, as something quite fundamental ^ that Denmark also included the island. The garrison pa Bornholm after delkapitulationen exclusive should have ordered the krigsmarinen are rejected besides, by Bent Jensen.

Formally speaking, Bent Jensen was right pa all points, but there were several things that probably could give rise to interpretation and confusion: Of course were Bornholm territorial seen a part of Denmark and Bent Jensen paviser it, this was known to bathe in cheese and in the west. But pa due OENS geographical location put altsa even General Eisenhower a parenthesis of Bornholm. This seemed the Russians also have done the act. Although the German High Command on 5 May 1945 to General Lindemann in Silkeborg signified that Bornholm also was his ansvarsomrade (along with MOK Cheese in Kiel) had Bornholm, as far as the notifier's knowledge, never had command lines for Lindemann or admiral Wurmbach in Arhus. Pa due OENS the military situation had hardly been a part of Denmark. About the whole German war Marine 'in the area "covered by delkapitulationen, seems also to have given rise to interpretation and confusion. Covered Agreement also fartojer in the lake, especially in international waters? For example. commanded the German sokrigsledelse that all applicable German ships in the harbor of Copenhagen had to stab the sow before delkapitulationen came into force on 5 May on the morning. The ships would take part in the movements of refugees from east to west. Mon those ships including had to navigate the island of Bornholm, who was an important point in the German evacuation? Helps to draw a picture of confusion and ambiguity are also many German übade as the fifth and 6 May the shared sailed through the inner Danish waters, bound for Norway, which was not covered by delkapitulationen. And British planes had explicit orders to attack these übade. Saledes was the last übad in Danish waters lowered the RAF said late as the sixth May

All these questions regarding the German client / interpretation kapitulationsaftalen could Bent Jensen mask be resolved by a closer scrutiny of the German source material.

But in any event, sa ma probably with Bent Jensen note that had just a British uniform, made landing pa Bornholm, would the liberation of the island to have shaped up as the rest of the country.
As you can see, not exactly readable in English. :? Fortunately,being able to read a little German, I'm able to decipher a bit more of the untranslated text, due to some of the similarities of the languages. :)

Best regards,

Gorque

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1056
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

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

Post by Gorque » 15 Jun 2012 14:26

Hi Igor:
Egorka wrote:Anything can be a sorce of information. But it in noway mean that any source equally valuable depending on the subject.
While true, research papers, etc. can never be considered primary sources, not for their sources, but for their conclusions. . Even newspaper articles should be viewed with a critical eye. What strikes me with the NY Times article is that it comes from a Copenhagen that was then under the control of the Western Allies. If Bornholm was supposed to fall under the May 4 agreement, wouldn't the article have stated something other than ..."but it so happened that the Bornholm garrison did not belong to the forces mentioned in the original capitulation order" ?
Egorka wrote:In this particular case NYT article from May 10th 1945 can not be used as a proof of any sort.
What usually occurs when one declaims a source is the offering of the reason for why the source should be disregarded. Would you be so kind as to give us your reasons for declaiming this news article?
Egorka wrote:It could although be used as a source on f.ex. subject of how press covered Bornholm affair.

f.ex. means what? :?
Egorka wrote:But Gorque is trying to use it as some kind of proof of his point.

That is correct, however I am not trying to use it, I am using it. :)
Egorka wrote:I can easily produce dosens of news paper articles which whould argue a point opposite to of NYT. But what value would it have? Minimal value.

Why don't you let the readers of this thread decide as to value of the numerous newspaper articles in your possession. That's usually how a consensus is reached. If nothing else, it'll give all of us amateurs some fun during the summer doldrums. :)

PS: I'm glad you reconsidered your decision to quit the thread.

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 » 16 Jun 2012 15:31

Gorque wrote:As you can see, not exactly readable in English. :? Fortunately,being able to read a little German, I'm able to decipher a bit more of the untranslated text, due to some of the similarities of the languages. :)
Yes, hilarious automatic translation...
Nonetheless, which specific parts of this review do you think support your point of view?
PS: I'm glad you reconsidered your decision to quit the thread.
I did not quit the thread. I am just not planning to continue discussing if Bornholm was or was not covered by 4th May surrender, unless there will be presented any new arguments against that (like maybe some peculiar legal practice or something).
What usually occurs when one declaims a source is the offering of the reason for why the source should be disregarded. Would you be so kind as to give us your reasons for declaiming this news article?
We are discussing matters which a reporter at that time could ave minimal knowledge. Besides he neither wrote anything that contradicts my position nor something that has not been already mentioned in this thread.
If you think that the quote - "but it so happened that the Bornholm garrison did not belong to the forces mentioned in the original capitulation order" - proves that the capitulation did not legally apply to German forces on Bornholm, then you are mistaken. As has been numerous times writen in this thread Eisenhower did not want to send forces to Bornholm for the reasons of avoiding clashing with the Soviets.
It is in no way means that Bornholm was not legally covered by the surrender 4th May.
Why don't you let the readers of this thread decide as to value of the numerous newspaper articles in your possession. That's usually how a consensus is reached. If nothing else, it'll give all of us amateurs some fun during the summer doldrums. :)
It is too cumbersome for me to go to the library and work with microfilms...
But I can assure you that there were several newspapers issued on Bornholm every day. And all of them were printing cheerfull articles on the capitulations signed.
Best regards
Igor

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1056
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 18:20
Location: Clocktown

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

Post by Gorque » 17 Jun 2012 15:31

Hi Igor:
Egorka wrote:Yes, hilarious automatic translation...
Nonetheless, which specific parts of this review do you think support your point of view?
I don't believe I wrote that it supported my view. I believe I wrote "its the conclusions that the author reaches that are open to debate, as was also concluded by the remarks in the synopsis." Now if I misinterpreted the review, which is highly possible, considering what I had to work with, then my apologies.
Egorka wrote:We are discussing matters which a reporter at that time could ave minimal knowledge. Besides he neither wrote anything that contradicts my position nor something that has not been already mentioned in this thread.
If you think that the quote - "but it so happened that the Bornholm garrison did not belong to the forces mentioned in the original capitulation order" - proves that the capitulation did not legally apply to German forces on Bornholm, then you are mistaken. As has been numerous times writen in this thread Eisenhower did not want to send forces to Bornholm for the reasons of avoiding clashing with the Soviets.
It is in no way means that Bornholm was not legally covered by the surrender 4th May.

Then as has been sufficiently stated, by both sides, we continue to agree to disagree.
Egorka wrote:It is too cumbersome for me to go to the library and work with microfilms...
But I can assure you that there were several newspapers issued on Bornholm every day. And all of them were printing cheerfull articles on the capitulations signed.
While I can understand your reluctance in devoting more of your time in resolving/discussing this matter, I must express my respectful disappointment over your decision. If in the future you change your mind.... :)

BTW: I came across some mention of clandestine negotiations having taken place between the Soviets and some Danes in late '44 or early '45 regarding the Soviet liberation of Bornholm. Do you know anything about it?

Best regards,

Gorque

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”