Talk:German Instrument of Surrender

message: Why is it in Latin not Cyrillic font? Milik (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature by Representative of Soviet High Command 

message: Removed "at 22:43 hours (CET)". This is the same factoid as appeared on End of World War II in Europe. What is the source? and does it explicitly say CET? Please see Talk:End of World War II in Europe#Time Zones at Ceasefire for more details and please place an answer there. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Zones at Ceasefire 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: :Like many institutions in Nazi Germany the control of the Army was split between the OKW and the German Army High Command (OKH). By 1945 the OKW commanded all German forces in every theatre apart from those on the Eastern Front which were under OKH control and which, before his suicide, had reported directly to Hitler. So it was not clear if Schörner was under the command of OKW on May 8 or if Dönitz, or von Krosigk, needed to order Schörner to surrender. In the end it was resolved by force of arms.
Although OKH was operationally independent of OKW, OKH was subject to the orders of OKW, and the surrender document applied to all German forces.
Roadrunner (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected "OKH" to "OKW" in the last sentence. --Orangerider (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: von Krosigk certainly not. Also, it may be that Keitel had been appointed CiC Army then (Dönitz, supposing that he was Reichspräsident at all*, certainly had the authority to do so). Anyway, Schörner, though Hitler had appointed him his successor as CiC Army in his testament, at least effectively only commanded the army group he had commanded before.--2.236.198.248 (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove 

message: It is better to limit this article to surrender ceremony and text, and move the rest to a new artical Surrender of Germany. Also see Japanese Instrument of Surrender and Surrender of Japan. --Srinivasasha (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's necessary. The article is not very long after all, and the two things belong together anyway. --Maxl (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  split 

message: The German Instrument of Surrender took place on May 8th, not March 8th. It is currently listed as March 8th on the Wikipedia home page. Not sure how to correct this...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.253.203 (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion in 'On this Day..." Section... 

message: I removed this sentence "The United States and Britain acted on behalf of all Allied forces, whereas France, Germany and the USSR acted individually." Because it does not make sense. The surrender was between the German military and the Allied military who had two independent commands. The surrender was signed by a representative of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, the  German High Command. No American signed the document, the Brit signed for his supreme commander (this rather neatly shows how combined the Western Allied command was). Both of whom were authorised to do so by their governments. Now it may be that the Soviet representative exceeded his powers and was not authorised to sign it, but the the Frenchman was only signing as a witness and as such his signature did not represent France's agreement to the terms, which was done through the signature representing the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force as it was for Canada and all other nations fighting under the command of Eisenhower. 
If the sentence is meant to say that "Ivan Sousloparov was not authorised to sign on behalf of the Soviet High Command" then that is what it should say, because the wording at the moment is just plain confusing. -- PBS (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This wording is a verbatim quote from the source (The American Journal of International Law) I used. We may speculate what concretely was meant by that, however, the source does not explain that. If this source contradicts to other sources let's think how to re-word that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I say remove it (as I did before), it is not clear and the reason why the Soviet's objected to the Rheims signing is explained much more succinctly in the next section. -- PBS (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. After the article have been modified, this text became redundant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acted individually 

message: When wording for the body of the text has been agreed, it will be necessary to update the lead to reflect the wording in the body of the text. -- PBS (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did that. Please, let me know if the changes reflect the new article's text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

text: There was one more difference: Jodl was an officer without a right of command. Anyway, since the situation with these two surrenders is quite confusing, I simply do not know how to summarise it in few words (the lede should be short). If you have any idea, please, propose your own wording.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How was the position of Walter Bedell Smith (who was an American and not British as I mistakenly wrote above) any different? They were both staffs offices and not operational officers. -- PBS (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he was an American. Again, please, propose your wording.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: We need to add a point that despite the elaborate plans drawn up by the European Advisory Commission, it was not their document that was implemented but one drafted by a SHAEF staff officer based on the surrender in Italy, I think Ziemke covers it. -- PBS (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I already added that using the Pinkus' book as a source. Do you think Ziemke's description is more adequate? In addition, Rheims and Berlin instruments differ in only two details: the first sentence (about English language) was removed from the Berlin text and the clause #6 was added. Since the Berlin's instrument is supposed to be a document from the blue folder (EAC approved text), the folder Smith forgot during preparation of the Rheims instrument, then it is hard to explain almost verbatim coincidence between these two documents. The only reasonable explanation is that the Rheims instrument was prepared using the EAC document as the starting point, so the clause #6 was deliberately removed and the preamble ("Only this text in English is authoritative") was added. However, all of that are just my speculations. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The text proposed by me is based on this  (p.501-3). According to this , Mcfarland is the academic and scholarly publisher, so the source seems to meet RS criteria.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What proposed text? The work presents one point of view, but it is a point of view and not the only interpretation of the events. For example the speculation of why Eisenhower did not attend Berlin would be more credible if he had signed the Rheims document but he had avoided doing that as well. As with any secondary source it empathises points in the primary sources to support the view of events held by that historian. Ziemke 257,258 gives different reason why the EAC was not used. It also includes the fact that "The chief author of the surrender document signed at Reims was a British colonel, John Counsell, an actor and theatrical manager in civilian life, who had cheerfully "cribbed" much of it from the terms for the German surrender in Italy (2 May) published in Stars and Stripes." (Ziemke cites: John Counsell, Counsell's Opinion (London: Barrie and Rockliff, 1963) , 148-50.)
-- PBS (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that if other points of view exist, they also should be presented. What concrete changes do you propose?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: "Ziemke gives different reason why the EAC was not used." Pinkus gives no reasons. He just writes that the document signed in Rheims was prepared without Soviet participation (what caused quit understandable Soviet concern), and, btw that does not contradict to what Ziemke writes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad hoc text 

message: Were there any legal precedents considered when drafting the documents ? Such as previous instruments of surrender. Obviously there was no likelihood of legal challenges but the committee drafting might have had an eye on the consequences for future legal disputes if the niceties were not observed. 31.68.196.128 (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Precedents 

message: I came here from the front page where it says (to my great surprise) that today (8 May) the surrender was signed in Berlin. The body of the article precisates that to "somewhen before midnight". Now either all our schoolbooks and lexica in Germany are wrong, or this is incorrect. On 8th May of Central European Time, no surrender happened. The Reims surrender happened in the very early hours of 7th May. The Berlin surrender happened at precisely 0:16 CET on May the ninth. What actually happened on May the 8th was the ceasefire the capitulation naturally brought with itself (May 8th 23:01 CET) and, apparently, the date on the Berlin document says "May the 8th" (not surprising at a document signed shortly after - but not before - midnight.)--2001:A60:1572:6701:E5BB:9D76:829E:13DD (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that although the Act of surrender is dated May 8th; that the physical signing didn't happen til after midnight CET; hence, strictly on May 9th.  When the German delegation realised that the text of article 2 had been tightened up to require surrendering forces to lay down their arms; they stalled signing until they realised there was no alternative.  But of course, by then, the date of surrender - and hence the date of signing that surrender - was fixed. TomHennell (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: There seems to be a mistake in the text

message: I have reverted the text below:
"On 14 March 1945, the EAC held a meeting with the representatives of Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece on the issue of the instrument of surrender. The Czechoslovakian government proposed the document shall include a paragraph against acquisition of territories by force and would mention the responsibility of the German state to the war. The governments of Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg, concerned with their positions as small Allied nations, recommended that the instrument of surrender shall include a specific acknowledgement of the part to be played by the small countries in the control of Germany. The Norwegian government requested the document to include specific reference to the demand of surrender of the German troops in Norway. The Yugoslav government declared its intention to refrain from any specific recommendations until an agreement on unity government was reached between Josip Broz Tito and Prime Minister Ivan Šubašić. The Greek government requested to include in the document a demand to all German forces that may remain on Greek territory at the moment of surrender to surrender their military equipment to the Greek Royal government.Report of the Allied Consultation Committee to the European Advisory Commission, 14 March 1945 Foreign Relations of the United States 1945, vol. III, pp. 191–198"
So far as I can tell; none of these changes ever made it into the EAC text. TomHennell (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  redraft 

message: ", since the definitive signing occurred after midnight Moscow time" - this is nonsense. 85.180.173.66 (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  9 May 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File: will be appearing as picture of the day on May 8, 2020. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2020-05-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:{{Remove file prefix|Field Marshall Keitel signs German surrender terms in Berlin 8 May 1945 - Restoration.jpg}}]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Somebody should really fix this mess regarding time and dates of the real moment an act was signed (local date and time and, for others to more easily translate into their own timezone, UTC), what's the date written on that act (so we can see if it was backdated/postdated).
This article says "The signing took place 8 May 1945 at 21:20 local time." and "The signing in Berlin took place on 9 May 1945 at 00:16 local time." - at least one is wrong. Or maybe you mean on 8 May 1945 at 21:20 they met, shake hands, start talking and on 9 May 1945 at 00:16 they actually put their signatures on the document? I think the time a document is signed is the time when parties put their signature on the document. If this is just a mistake, ok, let's fix it, let's have in both places the same date and time (and that should be when the parties actually signed imo), if it's not a mistake, but a cheap trick to convince wikipedia readers that both 8 may and 9 may could be considered the "victory day" - that's not nice. Gender fluidity is so much our strength that even German surrender date should be fluid?
In both Reims and Berlin (english transcript, german document - "2301 uhr mitteleuropaeischer zeit am 8 mai") surrender documents, it says German forces will cease operations at May 8, 23:01 CET. Can someone clarify when Nazi Germany surrender became effective (May 8, 23:01 CET), what was the local date and time for different involved parties (US, UK, Germany, USSR)? Were Germany or other central European countries using summer time? May 8, 23:01 CET meant May 9, 00:01 local time (CEST, Central European Summer Time) in Germany, Poland, Italy, Hungary? When German soldiers surrendered, what time Russian soldiers saw on the watches they were stealing from them?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.177.121 (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: good spot; the time in the lede para is wrong; the time in the body of the article is right.  The signing ceremony was initiated just after midnight local time on 9 May; and the physical signing was completed by 1.00 a.m.  But the signing was backdated to 8 May, to be consistent with the previously agreed date and time.  The complication being that the Western Allies were using WWII Zulu time - which was double British Summer Time; and hence 'ahead' of local Central European Time (which the Soviets were using). So, 2301 8 May Central European Time corresponded to 0001 9 May Zulu Time. The time in London was an hour 'ahead' of the time in Moscow. TomHennell (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I see, nowadays we can't agree if men can menstruate, but can we at least agree when Nazi Germany surrendered?! 

message: line: and the Allied Expeditionary Force together with the Supreme High Command of the Soviet Red Army, with further French and US representatives signing as witnesses. - What body is meant by the term "Allied Expeditionary Force" ? - Thanks for clearing that. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Allied Expeditionary Force'' - ? 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Surrender of Germany. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 11#Surrender of Germany until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Surrender of Germany" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Germany's surrender in 1945. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 11#Germany's surrender in 1945 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Germany's surrender in 1945" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :German surrender. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 11#German surrender until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "German surrender" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Hello, the text now says: "that effected the extinction of Nazi Germany". Maybe I don't fully understand "extinction" in this sentence, but it was not so much about the "extinction" of "Germany" or "Nazi Germany" (dissolution or dismemberment of the country itself), but about making Germany unable to continue the war. Ziko (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "that effected the extinction of Nazi Germany" 

message: "That means time of both signing and capitulation was on 9 May at 01:01 according to Moscow Time." Nonsense.
176.74.150.116 (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moscow time