This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
German Instrument of Surrender article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 9, 2006, May 9, 2007, May 9, 2008, May 8, 2010, May 8, 2012, and May 8, 2015. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is it in Latin not Cyrillic font? Milik ( talk) 01:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
"2:41 hours" looks sort of strange. Shouldn't that be "1421 hours" ? John Sheu 17:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It is in the first instrument of surrender as "Signed at Rheims at 0241 on the 7th day of May, 1945. France" -- Philip Baird Shearer 23:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Article reassessed and graded as start class. -- dashiellx ( talk) 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I think the split makes sense. It is the format used for Japan, why not Germany? 99.233.54.173 ( talk) 23:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Any such term as "Nazi Germany" should be removed from the article and be replaced by plain Germany. There was no other Germany than the Third Reich then, nor were there attempts to overcome the Nazis from within, that could have been worth mentioning. Hence the nazis acted on behalf and most likely with the agreement of Germany or the vast majority of the German people. They were an integral part of it or sometimes rather the integrating part of the society, independant of the question whether we today like it or not. It was Germany all through the war and it was all of Germany surrendering to the allied forces. Don't you agree? Regards, -- 194.246.46.15 ( talk) 08:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I agree. Using term "Nazi Germany" might give an impression that "not nazi" Germany exist at that time mutually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.121.72 ( talk) 00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
I moved this paragraph:
This ratification was a response to both Soviet and British concerns. As well as wishing to ensure that as much of Germany's military and industrial equipment as possible was available to be confiscated and taken to the USSR, and that German forces on the Eastern Front remained in place to await Soviet captivity rather than moving west to surrender to the western allies, the Soviets desired a signature in the presence of the Soviet Supreme Commander (Major General Susloparov, who had accepted the May 7 surrender for the Soviets, was only liaison officer at the Western Headquarters.) The British wanted the surrender to be signed by the highest military and civilian representatives of the German Reich, in order to avoid a repeat of the stab-in-the-back legend which had been cultivated by the Germans after World War I because the armistice had been signed only by a civilian politician and an unknown general. (Jodl, who signed in Rheims, was an officer without the power of command). It was agreed to have the May 7 act ratified with the signatures of the commanders in chief of the Wehrmacht, army, air force and navy , who were brought to Karlshorst, the seat of the Soviet Supreme Commander. The representatives of the Western Headquarters, the United Kingdom, France and the United States entered the dining room of the officers' mess in Karlshorst shortly before midnight. The German delegation, which had been flown in from Flensburg to Tempelhof in a U.S. airplane, entered the room shortly after midnight after Marshal Georgy Zhukov, the Soviet representative, had opened the ceremony. The ratification of the German Act of Unconditional Surrender was signed around 00.15 o'clock, after its regulations had already been in effect for over an hour (23:01 Central European Time).
Here because it does not have any sources to back it up. It makes several claims that carry POV connotations that need a source, eg the British position differing from the American one. Further it claims that the it was signed at 00:15 yet the source in the previous paragraph claims it was signed shortly before midnight.
There is a problem with the timing. It depends if the time given is zulu time (which was British Double Summer time --German summer time-- and the time the Western Armed forces were using) or times based on CET. The ceasefire came into effect at 00:01 local time which was 23:01 CET, so if as Earl F. Ziemke says it was signed shortly before midnight then it was signed before the hostilities formally ceased. So the paragraph my be wrong with its timings and this needs to be verified with a reliable source before being reinstated. -- PBS ( talk) 10:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with what you have said. My problem is not with the Soviets wanting another ceremony. This is agreed in all sources. I am surprised that the document "UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY CERTAIN GERMAN EMISSARIES TO THE ALLIED HIGH COMMANDS" existed, I had not seen it mentioned before, but backs up the Soviet position rather than contradicting it. Without it legally one has to invoke paragraph four of the Rheims surrender to justify the second surrender.
Rather as I said above my problems are two fold: The first is the British and the Americans holding different positions over this issue, and more importantly the timing issue which is contradicted by Ziemke book, so both these need citations. -- PBS ( talk) 23:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Since the Rheims ceremony was arranged by the Western Allies, and the Soviet command was not notified about the ceremony, immediately after the surrender had been signed the Soviet command announced that the Soviet representative in Rheims, General Susloparov, had no authority to sign this document.
- SHAEF had sent drafts of the Act of Military Surrender to Washington, London, and Moscow on 6 May and received reactions from Churchill and Winant before the signing but not from Washington or Moscow.6 Moscow's response reached Reims on the morning of 7 May, six hours after the Germans had signed. It practically accused Eisenhower of making a truce with the Germans that would allow them to continue the war against the Soviet Union; and it insisted-too late by then-that there be only one signing and that in Berlin. SHAEF had proposed signing first at Reims and later at Berlin to save time and lives.
"No sooner was the ink dry..." is a common figurative expression, and given the time frame of 2 to 3 days, a gap of 4 hours is not immediate. Immediate has connotations of the candles used for the sealing wax flickering as a muddy dispatch rider throws open the door with a dispatch in hand as the talcum-powder is blown off the surrender document. -- PBS ( talk) 22:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
"It was signed by representatives of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW) and the Allied Expeditionary Force on May 7 (French and Soviet representatives signed as witnesses), and by the head of OKW and the British, American and Soviet High Command on May 8, 1945. "
Is still not quite right it the soviet did not sign as a witness, and the change in wording from "Allied Expeditionary Force" to " American and Soviet High Command" implies that somehow the AEF was not the same as the American High Command. In point of fact although different people signed, exactly the same parties to the agreement signed both, the only difference was that in the first instance one of the signaturees (is there such a word) was not authorised to sign on behalf of the Soviet Hight Command and the number of witnesses was greater for the second one. -- PBS ( talk) 02:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
I don't think "In addition, it wad been found that the document signed in Rheims was different from the draft prepared earlier, which had been approved by the Big Three." in the Berlin section is adequate, because as the Berlin wording is almost identical to the Rheims document, it follows that was not considered a show stopper by the Soviets. The point needs to be placed in a paragraph of its own in the background section, pointing out that it is adequate as an immediate military surrender, but as it was not based on the EAC document it missed out the civilian surrender and other finer points of diplomacy as discussed in preceding paragraphs. -- PBS ( talk) 00:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
-- PBS ( talk) 02:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Churchill's speech on the surrender. In it Churchill states that Berlin will (he was speaking on the 8th May 1945) ratify the Rheims surrender. -- PBS ( talk) 23:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
This article says:
I had not known about that. Can a reference be cited and some specifics provided? Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. [1]"
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)
References
", since the definitive signing occurred after midnight Moscow time" - this is nonsense. 85.180.173.66 ( talk) 16:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Field Marshall Keitel signs German surrender terms in Berlin 8 May 1945 - Restoration.jpg 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)
This photograph shows Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel signing the German Instrument of Surrender in Berlin. The first surrender document was signed on 7 May 1945 in Reims by General Alfred Jodl, but this version was not recognized by the Soviet High Command and a revised version was required. Prepared in three languages on 8 May, it was not ready for signing in Berlin until after midnight; consequently, the physical signing was delayed until nearly 1:00 a.m. on 9 May, and backdated to 8 May to be consistent with the Reims agreement and public announcements of the surrender already made by Western leaders.Photograph credit: Lt. Moore; restored by Adam Cuerden
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
German Instrument of Surrender article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 9, 2006, May 9, 2007, May 9, 2008, May 8, 2010, May 8, 2012, and May 8, 2015. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is it in Latin not Cyrillic font? Milik ( talk) 01:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
"2:41 hours" looks sort of strange. Shouldn't that be "1421 hours" ? John Sheu 17:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
It is in the first instrument of surrender as "Signed at Rheims at 0241 on the 7th day of May, 1945. France" -- Philip Baird Shearer 23:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Article reassessed and graded as start class. -- dashiellx ( talk) 19:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
I think the split makes sense. It is the format used for Japan, why not Germany? 99.233.54.173 ( talk) 23:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Any such term as "Nazi Germany" should be removed from the article and be replaced by plain Germany. There was no other Germany than the Third Reich then, nor were there attempts to overcome the Nazis from within, that could have been worth mentioning. Hence the nazis acted on behalf and most likely with the agreement of Germany or the vast majority of the German people. They were an integral part of it or sometimes rather the integrating part of the society, independant of the question whether we today like it or not. It was Germany all through the war and it was all of Germany surrendering to the allied forces. Don't you agree? Regards, -- 194.246.46.15 ( talk) 08:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I agree. Using term "Nazi Germany" might give an impression that "not nazi" Germany exist at that time mutually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.121.72 ( talk) 00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
I moved this paragraph:
This ratification was a response to both Soviet and British concerns. As well as wishing to ensure that as much of Germany's military and industrial equipment as possible was available to be confiscated and taken to the USSR, and that German forces on the Eastern Front remained in place to await Soviet captivity rather than moving west to surrender to the western allies, the Soviets desired a signature in the presence of the Soviet Supreme Commander (Major General Susloparov, who had accepted the May 7 surrender for the Soviets, was only liaison officer at the Western Headquarters.) The British wanted the surrender to be signed by the highest military and civilian representatives of the German Reich, in order to avoid a repeat of the stab-in-the-back legend which had been cultivated by the Germans after World War I because the armistice had been signed only by a civilian politician and an unknown general. (Jodl, who signed in Rheims, was an officer without the power of command). It was agreed to have the May 7 act ratified with the signatures of the commanders in chief of the Wehrmacht, army, air force and navy , who were brought to Karlshorst, the seat of the Soviet Supreme Commander. The representatives of the Western Headquarters, the United Kingdom, France and the United States entered the dining room of the officers' mess in Karlshorst shortly before midnight. The German delegation, which had been flown in from Flensburg to Tempelhof in a U.S. airplane, entered the room shortly after midnight after Marshal Georgy Zhukov, the Soviet representative, had opened the ceremony. The ratification of the German Act of Unconditional Surrender was signed around 00.15 o'clock, after its regulations had already been in effect for over an hour (23:01 Central European Time).
Here because it does not have any sources to back it up. It makes several claims that carry POV connotations that need a source, eg the British position differing from the American one. Further it claims that the it was signed at 00:15 yet the source in the previous paragraph claims it was signed shortly before midnight.
There is a problem with the timing. It depends if the time given is zulu time (which was British Double Summer time --German summer time-- and the time the Western Armed forces were using) or times based on CET. The ceasefire came into effect at 00:01 local time which was 23:01 CET, so if as Earl F. Ziemke says it was signed shortly before midnight then it was signed before the hostilities formally ceased. So the paragraph my be wrong with its timings and this needs to be verified with a reliable source before being reinstated. -- PBS ( talk) 10:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with what you have said. My problem is not with the Soviets wanting another ceremony. This is agreed in all sources. I am surprised that the document "UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY CERTAIN GERMAN EMISSARIES TO THE ALLIED HIGH COMMANDS" existed, I had not seen it mentioned before, but backs up the Soviet position rather than contradicting it. Without it legally one has to invoke paragraph four of the Rheims surrender to justify the second surrender.
Rather as I said above my problems are two fold: The first is the British and the Americans holding different positions over this issue, and more importantly the timing issue which is contradicted by Ziemke book, so both these need citations. -- PBS ( talk) 23:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Since the Rheims ceremony was arranged by the Western Allies, and the Soviet command was not notified about the ceremony, immediately after the surrender had been signed the Soviet command announced that the Soviet representative in Rheims, General Susloparov, had no authority to sign this document.
- SHAEF had sent drafts of the Act of Military Surrender to Washington, London, and Moscow on 6 May and received reactions from Churchill and Winant before the signing but not from Washington or Moscow.6 Moscow's response reached Reims on the morning of 7 May, six hours after the Germans had signed. It practically accused Eisenhower of making a truce with the Germans that would allow them to continue the war against the Soviet Union; and it insisted-too late by then-that there be only one signing and that in Berlin. SHAEF had proposed signing first at Reims and later at Berlin to save time and lives.
"No sooner was the ink dry..." is a common figurative expression, and given the time frame of 2 to 3 days, a gap of 4 hours is not immediate. Immediate has connotations of the candles used for the sealing wax flickering as a muddy dispatch rider throws open the door with a dispatch in hand as the talcum-powder is blown off the surrender document. -- PBS ( talk) 22:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
"It was signed by representatives of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW) and the Allied Expeditionary Force on May 7 (French and Soviet representatives signed as witnesses), and by the head of OKW and the British, American and Soviet High Command on May 8, 1945. "
Is still not quite right it the soviet did not sign as a witness, and the change in wording from "Allied Expeditionary Force" to " American and Soviet High Command" implies that somehow the AEF was not the same as the American High Command. In point of fact although different people signed, exactly the same parties to the agreement signed both, the only difference was that in the first instance one of the signaturees (is there such a word) was not authorised to sign on behalf of the Soviet Hight Command and the number of witnesses was greater for the second one. -- PBS ( talk) 02:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
I don't think "In addition, it wad been found that the document signed in Rheims was different from the draft prepared earlier, which had been approved by the Big Three." in the Berlin section is adequate, because as the Berlin wording is almost identical to the Rheims document, it follows that was not considered a show stopper by the Soviets. The point needs to be placed in a paragraph of its own in the background section, pointing out that it is adequate as an immediate military surrender, but as it was not based on the EAC document it missed out the civilian surrender and other finer points of diplomacy as discussed in preceding paragraphs. -- PBS ( talk) 00:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
-- PBS ( talk) 02:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Churchill's speech on the surrender. In it Churchill states that Berlin will (he was speaking on the 8th May 1945) ratify the Rheims surrender. -- PBS ( talk) 23:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
This article says:
I had not known about that. Can a reference be cited and some specifics provided? Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. [1]"
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)
References
", since the definitive signing occurred after midnight Moscow time" - this is nonsense. 85.180.173.66 ( talk) 16:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Field Marshall Keitel signs German surrender terms in Berlin 8 May 1945 - Restoration.jpg 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)
This photograph shows Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel signing the German Instrument of Surrender in Berlin. The first surrender document was signed on 7 May 1945 in Reims by General Alfred Jodl, but this version was not recognized by the Soviet High Command and a revised version was required. Prepared in three languages on 8 May, it was not ready for signing in Berlin until after midnight; consequently, the physical signing was delayed until nearly 1:00 a.m. on 9 May, and backdated to 8 May to be consistent with the Reims agreement and public announcements of the surrender already made by Western leaders.Photograph credit: Lt. Moore; restored by Adam Cuerden
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)