![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Notice: This is a daughter article of World War II - It was taken from the mother page made to alleviate the size of the older article. WhisperToMe 07:21, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Removed references to Karl Dönitz as Führer, as it is stated in his article that by order of Hitler he was not to carry that title. User:130.89.166.237 19:08, 1 Nov 2004
As the article says at the top Dönitz was Reichspräsident, but with the suicide of Goebbels he acted as Führer in that he collected all the remining government he could around him. So he was not just acting as head of state he was also acting as Chancellor, which made him acting Führer. The whole thing is very dubious though because under what constitutional article did Hitler get to nominate his successors? Philip Baird Shearer 19:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why is the "end of World War II in Europe" solely about Germany and Austria? What about Scandinavia, Eastern Europe and Italy? Get-back-world-respect 13:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The article states:
German troops in Italy had already surrendered on May 2, 1945, (as had many other German soldiers at different stages of the war), which is why they are not mentioned. After the surrender on the 8th. Some small garrisons held out for a day or so, like the Channel Islands. Theses are not mentioned because only Norway held enough soldiers to fight as an army and they surrendered on the 8th. There were no significant forces on the Eastern Front who did not obey the May 8 order to surrender. Group Army Centre was the only coherent force left and it did. Philip Baird Shearer 14:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article is a strategic overview of the last days of the war. It is not about individual actions. So I have removed the sinking of the SS Cap Arcona which is IMHO too detailed for this article. For example the entry on the RAF Bomber command web site Diary for May 2/3 it says:
If the sinking is included why not the bombing of Kiel? (or the air drops of Operation Manna). If these are included why not all regimental actions by all the participants on all sides for the last week of the war? Philip Baird Shearer 14:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Jodl was not present at the signing in front of Zhukov in Berlin! The very documents linked to in the article show this. Reverting. -- Nelnadon 07:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following passage:
(I removed the same passage from Allied Control Council, by the way.) It was, of course, in the stated interest of the Allies (see the Potsdam Agreement, for an example) that the point that they were actually defeated was driven home to the German population, so that the developments of 1918 could not be repeated, and military occupation was one of the means to accomplish this. But the reasons to establish military rule in Germany were manifold, and of course the total reorganisation of the German state went far beyond avoiding any "stab in the back" stories. So I think that the paragraph that I have stricken out is simply not germane. If somebody wants to detail the developments that led to the mode of occupation which was finally implemented, I have nothing against that. (A good place to start may be here.) But I don't know if it's really necessary in this article. -- SKopp 03:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Given the above I am re-instating the section you took out. The text does not mention the type of Allied Government it only mentions that there was a problem which had to be addressed because the wrong surrender documents were signed and gives the primary reason why this was considered to be a problem. The section its self does not say that it was a military government put in place just that the four allies "assume supreme authority with respect to Germany". Philip Baird Shearer 15:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
It is interesting that you choose to belittle the concerns of the time with "Who cared about whether the sanitation department formally surrendered?". The Second World War started only 21 years after the First World War. That means that most policy makers, who would have been over the age of 45, had lived through two world wars. That they drafted surrender articles, months before the end of the war, for both the military and the civilian governments, shows that they considered this to be important. Also when it came to the surrender of Japan no such mistake was made [1]. As to the source I have provided: "The Americans in particular, as little as their enthusiasm was for the London-situated EAC, attached great significance to the manner in which the surrender was accomplished, probably more than either the British or the Russians. ... The Americans tended to see the surrender as an end in itself, an end not only to German stab-in-the-back theories but also to the need for U.S. intervention in European wars." seems to cover it. Do you have a source which contradicts this? Philip Baird Shearer 13:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No I do not. Hitler and his ilk would have just turned the argument around if the field armies had surrendered and the civilian government had not; (one occasionally hears this argument from "The south will rise again" campaigners over that other unconditional surrender at the end of the American Civil War). In 1918 Germany close to civil war, and its population close to starving, she was defeated militarily, it was just that the armistice saved a formal military surrender. Given the precedent less than a generation earlier it is understandable that the legal eagles wanted to make sure that there could be no future legal argument that the surrender was anything but complete, and so "The Americans tended to see the surrender as an end in itself, an end not only to German stab-in-the-back theories...". If you have a source that says that the the EAC did not include in its intentions an "end to German stab-in-the-back theories", then we can discuss it further. Philip Baird Shearer 16:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can tell by your use of "already" that you are probably German. (I have removed it from the your last posting, for clarity). The source already provided the U.S. reasons for wanting this deceleration "The Americans tended to see the surrender as an end in itself, an end not only to German stab-in-the-back theories...". There are other sources for this which mention it eg From Yalta to Berlin: The Cold War Struggle Over Germany. Earl F. Ziemke in "Battle for Berlin: end of the Third Reich" writes on page 136 "the planned four power control encountered a legal obstacle after the surrender...Further it could potentially be construed as not effecting the civilian government of Germany at all." Another source which I have to hand, which although not mentioning the EAC, gives a collaborating explanation as to why the surrender of the German civilian government was important to the Allies. It is the analysis of allied interrogations of German military and civilians in 1945 in A. Beevor's "Berlin the downfall 1945" Page 429. If you want more sources you will have to give me a few weeks to find them in a library. I would also appreciate it if you could provide a source which states that total surrender was not in part driven by the perceived need to stop any resurrection of the stab in the back theories and to legalise the military occupation. Philip Baird Shearer 15:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I remember reading, a while back, the text of Eisenhower's final communication as SHAEF to President Truman at the end of the war - or it could have been the final few lines of the official record of his office during the period. I'm not sure. It was very short and to the point, along the lines of "The mission of the Allied forces in Europe has been discharged. SHAEF". Any suggestions? - Ashley Pomeroy 17:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The Italian Social Republic is called a "puppet state" in this article. While - in practical terms - it's probably not far from the truth in many cases, the term have an highly derogatory meaning in common language (and as such it's a "not-neutral" term, and therefore not in the correct Wikipedia spirit). Moreover, properly, it imply a full control by a foreign power of all aspect of a country administration, and that was not exact in several aspects of the Italian Social Republic state (and as such it could be used in an inaccurate way). I'm not going to correct the page myself (and, anyway, it's a mere trifle) but I would suggest the main contributors to this page to consider the possibility to remove "puppet state" from the article. Another element that should be corrected is the date of the surrender of the Axis forces in Italy. Both Graziani - as commander of the Italian Forces - and the German emissary signed their surrendereds on April 29th, effective from May 1st (for the Italian) and May 2nd (for the Germans). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.13.178.249 ( talk) 15:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
arturo@lorioli.it
Need citation for this. Roadrunner ( talk) 16:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
"On April 30, 1945, realizing that all was lost, Adolf Hitler committed suicide in his bunker". As far as I know this has actually never been prooved, his body was never found. It's generally accepted that he did but I can't help to be a little sucpicious. So what proof can you present to me?
If All forces under German control to cease active operations at 2301 hours Central European time on 8th May 1945. Given that Britain was on Double Summer time what time was it in London? Also what time was it in Washington and Moscow? Philip Baird Shearer 15:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Central European Time is GMT +1. Assuming Germany was on Daylight Saving Time in May 1945 then it would have been GMT+2. British Double Summer Time was also GMT+2. So it was the same time in both Britain and Germany, which as this site points out would have facilitated troop movements onto the Continent. The US was observing War Time, so Washington (GMT -5) was at GMT -4 at ceasefire, 3:01 PM, May 8. Moscow is at GMT +3. Assuming a DST/War Time was in effect there (I haven't found anything concrete), then it was 1:01 AM, May 9 at ceasefire. Otherwise, it was one minute past midnight. -- Nelnadon 22:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
The RAF says "On 7 May General Eisenhower, with representatives from Britain, Russia and France, accepted the unconditional surrender of all German forces on all fronts, to be effective from 0001 hours on 9 May." This suggests that Germany was not (yet) on daylight saving time on 8 May, or if the civilians were, the Armies were not or the times in the docment were CET not CET+1.
Until anyone comes up with a better source which contradicts it. I have added a note to the page stating that British Double Summer Time meant that the effective time of the surrender in the UK was 0001 hours on 9 May. Philip Baird Shearer 13:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. GMT+2 (or more accurately as you put it, CET+1) is properly called " Central European Summer Time" according to [ "timeanddate.com"], but for whatever reason the docs are in CET. Germany has observed Summer Time since the first World War, and I have found nothing to indicate the Nazis repealed it or moved its start date from the typical early spring time. So we can conclude it was 0001 hours in both Britain and Germany, May 9, 1945. -- Nelnadon 07:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I have removed 22:43 because it is not sourced and and does the source quote CET or "Central European Summer Time" (CET+1)? -- Philip Baird Shearer 20:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I have not yet found a definitive source but it seems that the time chosen for the Germans to stop operations was 00:01 9 May local time for the Western Allies on the front line.
For example Churchill records that "Yesterday morning at 2:41 a.m. ... General Jodl ... signed the act of unconditional surrender..." and in the same document states "Hostilities will end officially at one minute after midnight to-night (Tuesday, May 8), but in the interests of saving lives the "Cease fire" began yesterday to be sounded all along the front, and our dear Channel Islands are also to be freed to-day." Which implies that the time of 2:41 a.m. is using the same time zone ( BDST) as 00:01 9 May, mentioned in the second quote. And several sources mention this time for example Germany Surrenders, 1945 by United States National Archives and Records Administration, "The unconditional surrender of the German Third Reich was signed in the early morning hours of Monday, May 7, 1945, the time on the documents is noted as 0241 hours or 2:41 a.m."
Harry Cecil Butcher in My Three Years with Eisenhower: The Personal Diary of Captain Harry C. Butcher, USNR, Naval Aide to General Eisenhower, 1942 to 1945 p. 152 states "2:41. A.M. British double summer time." as does Relman Morin in Dwight D. Eisenhower; a Gauge of Greatness p 124 states "2:41 am, British double summer time."
Douglas Botting From the Ruins of the Reich: Germany, 1945-1949 p. 65. "The official time of the document was given as 2:41 A.M. British Double Summer Time. The time set for the complete cessation of hostilities in Europe was given as 23:01 Central European time, May 8 (or one minute after midnight, May 9, British Time)" snipit 1 snipit 2 snipit 3
-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 12:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I am a little bit disappointed by recent edits
[2] and especially by the comments ("removed recently introduced clutter"). The West European campaign template starts with Overlord and ends with "German capitulation", implying that the path do ultimate German defeat lied mostly in the West. Obviously, that was not the case. To balance that bias, addition of something like "Eastern European campaign" would be desirable, however, discussion here
[3] demonstrated that that would be hard to combine all Eastern European campaigns during July 1944-May 1945 (the period spanned by the West European campaign template) into single template, due to enormously wide geography and large scale of the events there. Therefore, two solutions are possible:
(i) to replace the West European campaign template with something less ambitious (spanning the same period of time that the Battle of Berlin), or
(ii) to add Eastern European templates that span the same period that the West European campaign template does (starting from Bagration).
I did (i) as a temporary measure.--
Paul Siebert (
talk)
17:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I seem to have a problem with PBS here. As far as I can tell he is inapropriately fond of the Debellation concept, and wishes it to stand as a boded main point in the list of timeline events, despite the fact that is a disputed concept when applied to Germany.
Personally I much prefer to note it as a subtopic of the "Declaration Regarding the Defeat of Germany and the Assumption of Supreme Authority by Allied Powers" and adding the sentence "It is disputed whether this assumption of power constituted debellation or not."
What I do believe should be bolded main points since they are significant events are instead these.
So, I've re-reverted PBS. -- Stor stark7 Speak 18:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Cessation of hostilities between the United States and Germany was proclaimed on 13 December 1946 by United States President Truman.[16]
Peace treaties were signed on February 10, 1947 between the U.S. and Italy, Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, and Romania.
The Federal Republic of Germany had its first government formed on 20 September 1949 while the German Democratic Republic was formed on 7 October 1949.
End of state of war with Germany was granted by the U.S. Congress on 19 October 1951, after a request by president Truman on 9 July....
All this information used to be in one paragraph (which still exists but for some reason has had the US information stripped out of it) in it there was much less emphasis on one Allied power. See [ 18 September 2008.
The Debellation is well sourced in the article and is the commonly held view among the former Allied nations of WWII. Inside Germany for internal domestic legal reasons it is convenient to argue that it was not a Debellation and I have no objections to that being raised in a footnote.
For this reason I am going to put back the full paragraph but with a rearangement of the second to last sentence as it is out of time sequence. -- PBS ( talk) 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I’ve removed this statement from the 'German forces in NW Germany (etc) surrender' section
"As the operational commander of some of these forces was Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz, this signaled that the European war was over."
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
because despite having five references attached to it, none of them actually corroborate the statement; if anything they contradict it.
The statement also contradicts the Allied view that Germany had to make a full, unconditional surrender to all the Allies, not just the AEF, which is what eventually happened on 7th May. I trust that's OK with everyone...
Xyl 54 (
talk)
02:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
References
The image in the article is inaccurate with respect to Finland. Finland was never invaded by the Soviet Union, as the map implies. Instead, the Finnish-German alliance was severed, and the Continuation War ended, which led to the Lapland War. Furthermore, the map doesn't depict end-of-war front lines but something else (it's not de jure border ante bellum, and not Finnish maximum advance). The actual positions of the front lines at the end of the Continuation War and during the Lapland War can be seen from these two maps. -- vuo ( talk) 10:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
These two edits changed what was a time line list into sections. Should this change be kept? -- PBS ( talk) 07:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This edit removed the section header. These two edits changed what was a time line list into sections. I am not sure this is an improvement so I am reinstating the old the header and lets see if there is a consensus for the change. -- PBS ( talk) 07:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as Catholics make up 30% of Germany's population and that it's uncited it sounds doubtful they were the "minorities" targeted 182.239.168.135 ( talk) 06:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there any scholarly work on whether some legal remnants of World War II remain concerning those countries that got independence after 1945 but before 1991 from any of the 4 powers, (or possibly other allied countries)?
For example India went to war when the UK declared War on Germany in 1939. At independence India therefore wasstill at "War" with Germany, and one of its early foreign policy decisions was to sign a Peace Treaty with West Germany. (Presumably India recognised West Germany's exclusive mandate?). So by that logic is there any potential for a state that got independence after 1945 to not have reached a final "peace" settlement if the matter was overlooked at independence.
The implications that Algeria or St Kitts & Nevis may never have technically recognised the Oder-Neisse line are probably not worth losing any sleep over.
But the theoretical chance that Antigua, (just plucking a name from the air) could still be at "War" with Germany may not matter for for most purposes, but if say a local court suddenly found that due to an oversight vestiges of a "War" were still existence there could suddenly be all sorts of unintended implications if there was some sort of law banning trade with "enemy" aliens or firms.
Also for that matter are then any examples of post independence examples of these gaps being plugged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.110.46.121 ( talk) 23:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Large numbers of German prisoners in April caused considerable excitement in British newspapers. The Times headline on April 18 states 'HUGE GERMAN LOSSES ON WESTERN FRONT' '755,573 PRISONERS IN 16 DAYS' '...during the first 16 days of April 755,573 prisoners were taken.' The Daily Telegraph on Wednesday, April 18th writes, 'On Monday the American First Army created a new record by taking 97,118 prisoners in a day,' and on May 2nd, 'The Allied armies in the west captured more than 1,500,000 prisoners during April.' Jtbrown43 ( talk) 16:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Jtbrown43 ( talk) 13:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
From the edit history:
The reasons for the removal of the paragraph were given in the edit history and it has nothing to do with WP:IDL
-- PBS ( talk) 19:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
81.132.173.167 ( talk) 16:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The bolding in this article is kind of strange and distracting from the text. Equilibrium007 ( talk) 11:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Has German occupation of Norway ever ended? I miss Terje Rollem in the article. Polentarion Talk 04:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on End of World War II in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
" On April 25, 1945, as Allied forces closed in on Milan, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini was captured by Italian partisans on the 27."
Makes no sense. 25th or 27th ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eregli bob ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on End of World War II in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
This paragraph has several problems.
1. "On 29 April, Rodolfo Graziani surrendered all Fascist Italian armed forces at Caserta. This included Army Group Liguria". But following the link to "Army Group Liguria" you find a page that says Graziani surrendered 1 May.
2. "Upper Inn river to the American General Jacob L. Devers, commander of the American 6th Army Group." What !?!? Fixed it.
3. In general, the english needs revising. Masonmilan ( talk) 11:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Capitulation of nazi germany. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 11#Capitulation of nazi germany 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)