General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
Re: surrender agreement
Posted by:
oliver
()
Date: November 08, 2001 10:56PM
<HTML>no.its not that easy with "signing a sheet of paper and everything is superfantastic".
at wars end there was already the beginning of the cold war and every part wanted to profile itself and look important.
there was a signing of surrender between the british and the germans (monty and friedeburg) and there was the same incident in berlin karlshorst between germans and soviets and some other incidents like this. but there was no THE signing between allied and germans.there was the victors conference (without the germans) in potsdam. thats it. no germany taking part in signing over property.
there was even no peace treaty.
all actions of the allied were thus one-sided witout german authorities taking part in an event of signing anything over.
much later there wer some bilateral treaties smoothing things out.there germany again was a partner and signed something in this matter.
the whole business was settled finally more than 50 (!!) years later in the "2 plus 4 vertrag" making the reunification of germany possible.
kurt wrote:
>
> "The defeated governments, as part of the cease fire
> they signed, agreed to hand over all armaments to the allied
> powers."
>
> Maybe someone can help us out here.
>
> My understanding is that the final surrender agreement,
> signed by the German Gov't and ending hostilities in Europe,
> stipulated that all soldiers were to lay down their arms,
> surrender to the nearest allied personnel, and turn in all
> armaments to the allies. The Japanese agreed to similar terms.
>
> Most wars end with some sort of agreement that leaves both
> sides's governments and some portion of their military intact
> - like the First world War. But WWII did not end like that:
> with the signature of the surrender document, the German
> government ceased to exist, and all German government
> property became subject to the occupation authorities.
>
> Fortunately, with the passage of time, the allies came to
> realize that the complete occupation of the axis powers as
> unarmed protectorates - their initial vision of how to handle
> a postwar world - proved to be unnecessary, as Germany and
> Japan quickly rehabilitated themselves and re-took their
> place as respectable and preacefull independent nations.
>
> I'm glad it has all ended well. The immediate postwar
> occupation perhaps could have been handled better, but it
> could have been a whole lot worse. We should all be as
> gratefull that it went as well as it did.
>
> I'm also glad I can amuse you from time to time </HTML>
at wars end there was already the beginning of the cold war and every part wanted to profile itself and look important.
there was a signing of surrender between the british and the germans (monty and friedeburg) and there was the same incident in berlin karlshorst between germans and soviets and some other incidents like this. but there was no THE signing between allied and germans.there was the victors conference (without the germans) in potsdam. thats it. no germany taking part in signing over property.
there was even no peace treaty.
all actions of the allied were thus one-sided witout german authorities taking part in an event of signing anything over.
much later there wer some bilateral treaties smoothing things out.there germany again was a partner and signed something in this matter.
the whole business was settled finally more than 50 (!!) years later in the "2 plus 4 vertrag" making the reunification of germany possible.
kurt wrote:
>
> "The defeated governments, as part of the cease fire
> they signed, agreed to hand over all armaments to the allied
> powers."
>
> Maybe someone can help us out here.
>
> My understanding is that the final surrender agreement,
> signed by the German Gov't and ending hostilities in Europe,
> stipulated that all soldiers were to lay down their arms,
> surrender to the nearest allied personnel, and turn in all
> armaments to the allies. The Japanese agreed to similar terms.
>
> Most wars end with some sort of agreement that leaves both
> sides's governments and some portion of their military intact
> - like the First world War. But WWII did not end like that:
> with the signature of the surrender document, the German
> government ceased to exist, and all German government
> property became subject to the occupation authorities.
>
> Fortunately, with the passage of time, the allies came to
> realize that the complete occupation of the axis powers as
> unarmed protectorates - their initial vision of how to handle
> a postwar world - proved to be unnecessary, as Germany and
> Japan quickly rehabilitated themselves and re-took their
> place as respectable and preacefull independent nations.
>
> I'm glad it has all ended well. The immediate postwar
> occupation perhaps could have been handled better, but it
> could have been a whole lot worse. We should all be as
> gratefull that it went as well as it did.
>
> I'm also glad I can amuse you from time to time </HTML>