Military Review

Germany's Unconditional Surrender Act and its signatories

121
Germany's Unconditional Surrender Act and its signatories

From the school textbook and newsreel footage, I got the impression that the Act of Germany's unconditional surrender was signed by only two persons: from the Soviet side, Marshal of the Soviet Union Zhukov and from the German side, Field Marshal Keitel. Even historical the faculty of Tver University did not dispel this myth, although I understood that the representatives of the Allies should have signed this document as well. And I assumed the signatures of Field Marshal Montgomery, General Eisenhower and General De Gaulle.


In reality, everything turned out to be somewhat different.

First, there were seven signatories, including three from the German side.

Secondly, the text of the Act was prepared in three languages ​​- Russian, English and German. Moreover, the text in French was not even provided for, despite the fact that the document bears the signature of the representative of France, General De Latre de Tassigny.

Thirdly, without specifying a personal name, the Act mentions J.V. Stalin (Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Red Army) and D. Eisenhower (Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Forces). These two and GK Zhukov need no introduction. As for the rest of the signatories, here are brief biographical information about them, as about the persons who entered history through the Act under consideration.

As an old editor, I hasten to note two typos in the Russian text of the Act:

1) in the name of one of the German representatives - "Friedenburg" instead of "Friedeburg",
2) in the name of the representative of France - "DELATRE" instead of "De LATRE".

It is noteworthy that the positions and military ranks of the signatories from the German side are not indicated.

It is interesting to note that only three of the signatories - G.K. Zhukov, A. Tedder and V. Keitel - left their memoirs.

Arthur TEDDER



Born July 11, 1890 near Glasgow, Scotland. In 1912 he graduated from the University of Cambridge, began diplomatic service, but with the outbreak of the First World War he voluntarily entered the army, being a lieutenant in the reserve. In 1916 he joined the Royal Air Force. In 1936-1938. He was the commander of the Air Force of the Far Eastern Command of Great Britain, in 1938-1941. - Director of the Air Force for Research and Development.

In 1941 he was appointed Air Force Commander of the British Middle East Command. In July 1942 he was promoted to chief marshal aviation... In 1944 he was appointed Deputy Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, General Eisenhower, to coordinate Allied air operations in Western Europe. In 1946 he became the first Chief of Staff of the Air Force, serving in this capacity until 1951.

Author of the memoir With Prejudice: The War Memoirs of Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Lord Tedder (L., 1966).

He died on June 3, 1967 in Surrey.

Karl SPAATS



Born June 28, 1891 in Boyertown (Pennsylvania). In 1914 he graduated from the Military Academy at West Point and took part in the air battles of the First World War.

In July 1942, he took command of the 8th Air fleet In Great Britain. In early 1943 he was transferred to the Mediterranean theater of operations, where he commanded the Air Force in North-West Africa, and then in Italy. In January 1944, he was appointed Commander of the US Strategic Air Force in Europe. In July 1945 he was transferred to the Pacific theater of operations. And, despite the fact that he personally opposed the use of atomic bombs against Japanese cities, he led the last strategic bombing of Japan, which, on the orders of President Truman, included atomic bombs strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In September 1947 he was appointed Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force. In 1948 he retired. For some time he worked as an expert on national security issues.

He died on July 14, 1974 in Washington.

Jean de LATRE de TASSIGNY



Born February 2, 1889 in the town of Muilleron-en-Paredes. In 1911 he graduated from the Military Academy of Saint-Cyr. In 1912 - a cavalry school in Saumur. He participated in the First World War, during which he was wounded several times. In 1921-1926. served in Morocco. In 1939, before the outbreak of World War II, he was promoted to brigadier general.

In May 1940 he became the commander of an infantry division. After the surrender of France on June 22, 1940, he was imprisoned by the invaders. In October 1943 he fled to North Africa. In November 1943 he was promoted to general of the army. He commanded the French army in the Allied landing operations in the south of France and the subsequent offensive against Germany and Austria.

On behalf of General Charles de Gaulle, he signed the Act of Unconditional Surrender of Germany.

After World War II, he served in French Indochina, where in 1951 he stopped the advance of the Vietnamese general Vo Nguyen Giap in the Red River Delta. For health reasons he returned to France.

He died on January 11, 1952 in Paris.

Wilhelm Keitel



Born September 22, 1882 in the city of Helmscherode. In 1901 he joined the army as a volunteer. During the First World War he served as a staff officer. During the years of the Weimar Republic, he held administrative positions. In 1938 he became the head of the High Command of the Wehrmacht and was awarded the rank of Field Marshal in 1940.

In this capacity, he signed the Act of Germany's unconditional surrender.

He was found guilty by the International Military Tribunal for planning and waging an aggressive war, war crimes and crimes against humanity. After sentencing, he wrote his memoirs “12 steps to the scaffold ...” (Rostov-on-Don, 2000).

He was executed by hanging on October 16, 1946 in Nuremberg.

Hans-Georg von Friedeburg



Born July 15, 1895 in the city of Strasbourg. In 1914 he joined the Imperial Navy as a candidate for an officer rank. After the First World War, he continued to serve in the navy. In July 1939 he was appointed commander of a submarine.

From 1943 he commanded all German submarine forces. In January 1945 he was promoted to admiral general. In May 1945, he served as the commander-in-chief of the fleet for several days.

In this capacity, he signed the Act of Germany's unconditional surrender.

On May 23, 1945, he committed suicide.

Hans-Jürgen Stumpf



Born June 15, 1889 in the city of Kolberg (now Kolobrzeg in Poland). In April 1907 he joined the army as a volunteer. During the First World War he served in the General Staff. During the Weimar Republic, he served as a staff officer in the Ministry of War. September 1, 1933, with the rank of lieutenant colonel, led the Air Force. In 1938 he was promoted to general. During the Second World War, he commanded various aviation formations.

In 1940 he was promoted to colonel general. In January 1944, he was appointed commander of the Air Force on the Western Front.

As a representative of the Air Force, he signed the Act of Unconditional Surrender of Germany.

In 1947 he was released from British captivity. He died in 1968 in Frankfurt am Main.
Author:
121 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Poetry
    Poetry 16 May 2021 18: 06
    +16
    Before signing the act of surrender, Keitel nodded at the Frenchman and asked: "They also defeated us?" There was an awkward pause. After that, he put his signature.
    1. depressant
      depressant 16 May 2021 18: 16
      +3
      Good evening, Sergei Nikolaevich!
      How many have read about the Second World War, but from this article the horror got through. Mingled with a sense of the grandeur of the time.
      Maybe because the Act of Surrender was signed by people who knew they would be executed.
      1. Poetry
        Poetry 16 May 2021 18: 21
        +9
        Good evening, Lyudmila Yakovlevna. They knew where they were going, on June 22, 1941. I read the memoirs of the translator who was at this ceremony, unfortunately I forgot his name. I myself could not have come up with such a thing about Keitel.
        1. Blacksmith 55
          Blacksmith 55 16 May 2021 18: 46
          +16
          This phrase has been slightly modified.
          He literally said the following:
          Ba, und die Franzosen sind auch da?
          Translation. Bah, and the French are here?
          I think the meaning is the same.
          Two days ago, I already wrote about this in one comment.
          In general, I saw this document for the first time, thank you.
          1. nnm
            nnm 16 May 2021 19: 00
            +3
            Quote: Blacksmith 55
            He literally said the following

            Not a fact, colleague. You are citing the memoirs of de Gaulle, who clearly wanted this phrase to be more pleasant for the French.
            1. Blacksmith 55
              Blacksmith 55 16 May 2021 19: 17
              +5
              The truth may not be established.
              However, Keitel can be understood, just a few years ago, France signed a surrender, and now it was among the winners.
              I read somewhere, Stalin included the French among the winners. Or at his insistence it was done.
              1. nnm
                nnm 16 May 2021 19: 25
                +5
                Yes. And de Gaulle always remembered this. Therefore, after Stalin's death, he flew to the USSR and stood silently at the burial for about 2 hours, thinking and remembering what we will never know.
                Yes, about 20 minutes * But this does not change the meaning at all
                1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                  Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 16 May 2021 19: 39
                  +1
                  Quote: nnm
                  and for about 2 o'clock stood silently at the burial

                  Two hours stuck at the grave ??? Are you fucking serious? Okay, lovers of historical strawberries write about 20 minutes - wherever it went. But - two (!) Hours ?? Soon the bill will go for a day ...
                2. antivirus
                  antivirus 17 May 2021 04: 45
                  +2
                  I did not study at the Tver Department of History and knew about several people who signed (apart from the GKZh and Keitel). It’s strange: who is interested in what.
                  all from the 19th century. everyone knew how to shoe a war horse and milk a cow.
          2. Pavel Gusterin
            18 May 2021 18: 43
            0
            Please Peter.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 16 May 2021 19: 43
        +1
        Who and why gave you a minus?
        The article is really good, informative and not bloated.
      3. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 16 May 2021 21: 32
        +3
        Quote: depressant
        kt of surrender was signed by people who knew that they would be executed.

        That's where they go. They, giving orders, were not even able to imagine how much blood was spilled from their supply. They were deep into the lantern that thanks to them thousands of women, children, old people died. To the representatives of the "rabble of humanity" who had lost their human appearance, everything was one.

        This is the case when it is not scary to take up arms and pull the trigger yourself. Not for revenge, but to stop what is beyond good and evil. What needs to be mercilessly burned out with a red-hot iron. Something that must be stopped at any cost.
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 17 May 2021 04: 46
          +1
          That's where they go. They, giving orders, were not even able to imagine how much blood from their supply ...

          - I was surprised how such "heroes" grew out of classical German philosophy.
          1. Artyom Karagodin
            Artyom Karagodin 17 May 2021 08: 28
            0
            Nietzsche is also a classic of German philosophy. From there we grew up.
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 17 May 2021 10: 39
              -2
              Quote: Artyom Karagodin
              Nietzsche is also a classic of German philosophy. From there we grew up.

              Apparently, you haven't read Nietzsche, have you?
              1. Artyom Karagodin
                Artyom Karagodin 17 May 2021 12: 22
                0
                First, I read it. And secondly, in fact, it is generally known that Hitler and others. the Nazis were connoisseurs of Nietzsche.
                1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                  Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 17 May 2021 13: 17
                  0
                  Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                  well-known is the fact that Hitler and others. the Nazis were connoisseurs of Nietzsche.

                  However, unknown to you, I see, is the fact that Trotsky and Lenin also paid tribute to the Nietzschean thesis "life is the will to power." By the way, Lunacharsky wrote about this.
                  1. Artyom Karagodin
                    Artyom Karagodin 17 May 2021 13: 33
                    0
                    I don’t understand how one contradicts the other.
                    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 17 May 2021 13: 49
                      -2
                      Quote: Artyom Karagodin
                      I don’t understand how one contradicts the other.

                      So I don’t understand - what difference does it make who exactly appreciated Nietzsche? The 20th century is the age of Nietzsche. If you, as you claim, have read, then you will understand this thesis, if not, it is useless to explain.
                      1. Artyom Karagodin
                        Artyom Karagodin 17 May 2021 14: 22
                        0
                        Nietzsche said and wrote a lot. Why did you decide that I am only talking about the "will to power"? However, let's leave this discussion. In my opinion, it turns out about nothing.
            2. antivirus
              antivirus 17 May 2021 11: 02
              +1
              push the falling one --- do not destroy several peoples at the root ................... and states
    2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 16 May 2021 18: 30
      -6
      Quote: Poetiszaugla
      Keitel nodded at the Frenchman and asked

      I didn't think that this nonsense would appear so quickly in the comments - after all, VO, I thought, the people are more savvy than some kind of Zen. But no ... in the first comment.
      1. nnm
        nnm 16 May 2021 18: 37
        +5
        Colleague, it is far from the fact that this phrase was not. Here is a quote from de Gaulle's memoirs:
        "In the final act of surrender, the representative of France put his signature along with the signatures of Russia, the United States and Great Britain. Field Marshal Keitel even exclaimed:" Bah! And the French are here! " forces and made so many sacrifices. "
        Fourth paragraph from the bottom:
        http://militera.lib.ru/memo/french/gaulle3/04.html
        That is, yes, there are different interpretations of the translation and de Gaulle tried to make Keitel's statement more convenient for the French, but at least he also recognizes this fact.
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 16 May 2021 19: 04
          0
          Quote: nnm
          Here is a quote from de Gaulle's memoirs:
          "In the final act of surrender, the representative of France put his signature along with the signatures of Russia, the United States and Great Britain. Field Marshal Keitel even exclaimed:" Bah! And the French are here! "

          De Gaulle was not at Karlshorst for the signing. Accordingly, he could not hear any "exclamations" of Keitel.
          Quote: nnm
          but at least he admits this fact too.

          The fact that memoirists do not hesitate to insert common apocrypha in their memories is no secret.
          1. nnm
            nnm 16 May 2021 19: 12
            +6
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            De Gaulle was not at Karlshorst for the signing. Accordingly, he could not hear any "exclamations" of Keitel.

            - absolutely not an argument. It is like recognizing as invalid the quotes of any historical person who was not a direct participant. It is clear that he studied both the notes and reports of the participants, etc.
            Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
            The fact that memoirists do not hesitate to insert common apocrypha into their memories

            Yes, it is. Therefore, memoirs are not historical documents. As, for example, there is an analogy from Oppenheimer's "quote" from the Bhagavad-gita, after the first poisonous explosion, which he invented for himself later in his memoirs.
            Therefore, we cannot say that the quote in question is a historical fact, since it is not in the transcripts (although not a fact. I could not find information about this). We also cannot assert that it was not pronounced, due to the mention, at least, in the memoirs of two persons independent of each other. Therefore, I think it is worth leaving history to historians. Even if everyone were silent there, this would not diminish the essence of the feat of the Soviet people and their decisive contribution to victory.
            1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
              Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 16 May 2021 19: 48
              +5
              Quote: nnm
              We also cannot assert that it was not pronounced, due to the mention, at least, in the memoirs of two persons independent from each other.

              And who is the second person?
              Quote: nnm
              Therefore, I think it is worth leaving history to historians.

              Well, yes, then the Frolovs and Samsonovs, who called themselves historians, come out from somewhere and claim to be "historical truth."
              Quote: nnm
              Even if everyone were silent there, this would not diminish the essence of the feat of the Soviet people and their decisive contribution to victory.

              It's not about that. We are talking about "innocent" stuffing, which over time, remaining essentially a myth, turn into an "irrefutable fact." For example, a witness claims that at a buffet table that followed the signing of the surrender, Keitel raised a toast "to the victory of Russian arms." And this is also unconditionally believed.
            2. Avior
              Avior 16 May 2021 19: 52
              +3
              in the memoirs of two independent persons

              which ones
              De Gaulle wrote hearsay in a completely different way from how it is quoted.
              And whose second version?
              there is a quote from an interview with the Soviet and Russian historian P.P. Cherkasov
              There is a historical anecdote on this topic. When Field Marshal Keitel was led to sign the surrender in Karlshorst, he suddenly saw at the table, next to Zhukov and Eisenhower, the French General de Latre de Tassigny. They say that Keitel's pince-nez fell from his nose, and he exclaimed, looking at the Frenchman: "How, you also defeated us ?!" This, of course, is a historical anecdote, but it says something.

              but this is not a witness memoir
              So whose second version, where to read it?
              While it looks as if de Gaulle was simply distorted.
              especially since Keitel was chatting with Zhukov not that atfosphere, this is from Zhukov's memoirs
              The Germans were asked to sit at a separate table, which was specially set up for them not far from the entrance.

              The Field Marshal slowly sat down and raised his head, turning his eyes to us, who were sitting at the presidium table. Stumpf and Friedeburg sat next to Keitel. The officers accompanying them stood behind them. [332]

              I turned to the German delegation:

              - Do you have the act of Germany's unconditional surrender in your hands, have you studied it and have you the authority to sign this act?

              Air Chief Marshal Tedder repeated my question in English.

              “Yes, we have studied it and are ready to sign it,” Field Marshal Keitel replied in a muffled voice, handing us a document signed by Grand Admiral Dönitz. The document stated that Keitel, von Friedeburg and Stumpf were authorized to sign the act of unconditional surrender.

              This was far from the haughty Keitel who accepted the surrender from the defeated France. Now he looked beaten, although he tried to maintain some kind of posture.

              Standing up, I said:

              - I suggest that the German delegation come here to the table. Here you will sign the act of Germany's unconditional surrender.

              Keitel quickly got up, fixing an unkind glance at us, and then dropped his eyes and, slowly taking the field marshal's baton from the table, walked unsteadily to our table. His monocle fell and hung on a cord. The face was covered with red spots. Together with him, Colonel-General Stumpf, Admiral of the Fleet von Friedeburg and the German officers who accompanied them approached the table. Adjusting his monocle, Keitel sat down on the edge of a chair and, with a slightly trembling hand, signed five copies of the act. Stumpf and Friedeburg immediately put their signatures.

              After the signing of the act, Keitel got up from the table, put on his right glove and again tried to show off his military bearing, but he did not succeed, and he quietly walked away to his table.

              At 0 hours 43 minutes on May 9, 1945, the signing of the act of Germany's unconditional surrender was completed. I invited the German delegation to leave the hall.

              Keitel, Friedeburg, Stumpf, rising from their chairs, bowed and bowed their heads as they left the hall. Their staff officers followed them.

              nothing of the kind and there is not even a moment where it could have happened
              http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/zhukov1/22.html
        2. Avior
          Avior 16 May 2021 19: 22
          +1
          by your link in de Gaulle's memoirs
          I also received an unofficial message from Himmler, which clearly showed a trick of a man in a stalemate. The message read: “I agree. You won! Knowing where you started, General de Gaulle, I must take off my hat to you ... But what will you do now? Rely on the Anglo-Saxons? But they will treat you as a satellite, depriving you of your honor and dignity. Join the Soviets? They will establish their own order in France and get rid of you ... In fact, the only way that will lead your people to greatness and independence is an alliance with defeated Germany. Make it public now! Immediately establish relationships with people who still have de facto power in the Reich and want to lead their country on a new path ... They are ready for this. They ask you about it ... If you overcome the spirit of revenge, if you do not miss the opportunity that History offers you today, you will become the greatest man of all time. "

          Aside from the flattering nods addressed to me, there are grains of truth in this message from the brink of the grave. But, knowing the true face of the cornered author-tempter, I did not deign to answer him, as, incidentally, did the governments of London and Washington.

          http://militera.lib.ru/memo/french/gaulle3/04.html
          As for Keitel's remarks, did he not know that during the real surrender of Germany in Reims, the French representative was present at the signing of the act of Germany's surrender by Jodl and also signed this act? Why would this surprise him?
      2. Poetry
        Poetry 16 May 2021 18: 44
        +1
        Zhukov's translator must have lied. The truth is not clear: for what purpose? Ahh, got it. To mislead you. If you know for sure, you probably were present at this historic event, with which I congratulate you. Good luck.
        1. nnm
          nnm 16 May 2021 19: 29
          +1
          Colleague, well, you must admit that it is no longer serious to talk about what Keitel thought, how he reasoned ... We do not guess and do not write a plot from an alternative history. We are discussing that there is a reference to a similar phrase in the memoirs of two persons.
        2. Avior
          Avior 16 May 2021 19: 59
          +2
          forgive me, but can you give a link to the memoirs of this translator and a quote, what exactly did he write? Zhukov himself does not mention this in his memoirs
          1. Black lotos
            Black lotos 17 May 2021 20: 00
            +1
            Quote: Avior
            Zhukov himself does not mention this in his memoirs

            Neither the transcripts, nor the reports of war correspondents, nor the memoirs of the direct participants in the events, including Keitel, recorded such a phrase. Zhukov, to whom it was allegedly addressed, in his memoirs described the procedure for signing surrender in a completely different way: “All this happens in silence, without words. Words are no longer needed. All the necessary words were said by the Red Army and the armies of our allies. "
            In the issue of May 8, 1970, an article was published entitled "Der 8. Mai 1945. Vor der Kapitulation: Koalitionsgeplänkel in Karlshorst", timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the defeat of the Third Reich. Its author was the editor of the publication Karl-Heinz Janssen. The publication reported that Keitel, entering the hall for signing the surrender and seeing Latra de Tassigny, exclaimed: “Was, die Franzosen auch? Die haben uns noch gefehlt! " ("What, the French too? This is not enough for us yet").
            In Russia, the story about Keitel was unknown to the general public for a long time. The third volume of de Gaulle's Military Memoirs, in which she appears, was first published in Russian only in 2004.
            In 2010, Channel One released the documentary “De Gaulle. The Last Great French "from the" Secrets of the Century "series. Its creators mentioned Keitel's words in a softened version, but retained a dismissive intonation. It was alleged that the field marshal, when signing the surrender, was allegedly stunned by the presence of the French representative and sarcastically asked the allies: "How, and the French also defeated us?" Of course, the filmmakers did not confirm this story with any sources.
            So everything is as usual. Someone came up with something, ascribed it. And then someone replicated and immortalized the fake. And the fake lives and will continue to live. For it is not confirmed by anything, but handsome. If we like something, we repeat it. Even if it's a lie.
        3. zenion
          zenion 17 May 2021 16: 47
          0
          In such cases, there are always people who write down every word. Acts of surrender must be signed by an official that the signed is correct and seals with sealing wax, or else there. These are official documents for centuries and they must be certified.
          1. Black lotos
            Black lotos 17 May 2021 20: 02
            0
            Quote: zenion
            people who write down every word.

            so there is not only transcripts but also video chronicles. Event of the century after all ...
    3. 210ox
      210ox 16 May 2021 19: 52
      +2
      You can hate Keitel as a Nazi, but you need to have the inner strength to write your memoirs, knowing that a noose awaits you.
      1. lucul
        lucul 16 May 2021 20: 00
        -2
        You can hate Keitel as a Nazi, but you need to have the inner strength to write your memoirs, knowing that a noose awaits you.

        Keitel is a warrior, not a usurer.
        Therefore, nothing surprising.
        1. nnm
          nnm 16 May 2021 20: 02
          +4
          Instead of answering:
          The Chief of Staff of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces of Nazi Germany, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, on the actions of troops in the occupied territories and the shooting of hostages on September 16, 1941, pointed out: "... it should be borne in mind that human life in the respective countries in most cases has no prices and that intimidating action can be achieved only with the help of extremely brutal measures. The atonement for the life of every German soldier in such cases should be, in general, the death penalty of 50-100 communists. The methods of these executions should further increase the degree of the intimidating effect. "
          An ordinary representative of the "superior race" to the last hoped for a different sentence.
          1. lucul
            lucul 16 May 2021 20: 12
            -1
            An ordinary representative of the "superior race" to the last hoped for a different sentence.

            I don’t think - a soldier who repeatedly met death face to face would not tremble in front of her. Keitel, for all his Nazi views, was a professional soldier.
          2. zenion
            zenion 17 May 2021 16: 59
            +2
            LaKeitel, as he was called in Germany. This bastard wrote an order for the Wehrmacht and for the execution of all those at the front and occupied territory of the USSR. The order was called "Nacht und nebel" erlast "." Darkness and fog. "To instill terror in the occupied territories. To grab people in such a way that no one knew what happened to them. This order was carried out by the Wehrmacht, even though they said they did not have Much more were killed on the territory of the USSR than was indicated in the reports to LaKeitel, but it was only possible to understand from this by the report on how many cartridges were used, but it was not written where, when, who participated. as an elderly grandmother already told, that the Germans took the youth away towards the station, to be sent to Germany, and there was no more hearing or spirit.
            1. Poetry
              Poetry 17 May 2021 17: 05
              0
              In such cases, these non-humans often used "gas chambers". Unhappy people thought it was just a car.
              1. zenion
                zenion 17 May 2021 17: 13
                0
                To carry out this order, everything had to be secret.
                1. Poetry
                  Poetry 17 May 2021 17: 16
                  -1
                  EuroWerrmacht is again on our borders. Grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those fanatics.
        2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 16 May 2021 22: 11
          +2
          Quote: lucul
          Keitel warrior,

          laughing
          Nothing that drove this 'warrior' was 'Lackeytel'?
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Ren
      Ren 17 May 2021 10: 50
      +1
      Quote: Poetiszaugla
      "They beat us too?"

      If we proceed from the text of the document itself, then it can be rephrased so that the act of surrender was signed:
      One side:
      On behalf of the German High Command - Keitel, Friedenburg, Stumpf on the one hand
      On the other hand:
      Under the authority of the Supreme High Command of the Red Army (I.V. Stalin) - Marshal of the Soviet Union G.K. Zhukov;
      By the authority of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force (Eisenhower) - Air Chief Marshal Tedder.
      In the presence of two witnesses Spaats (USA) and DeLatre de Tassigny (France).
      Thus, the surrender of the Germans was accepted by the USSR + the Allies in one person (in a crowd), and the attesting witnesses were a Frenchman and an American. hi
  2. knn54
    knn54 16 May 2021 18: 11
    -1
    -signed by the representative of France, General De Latre de Tassigny.
    Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, seeing the representatives of France in the hall, exclaimed in his hearts: "And these also defeated us ???" ...
  3. nnm
    nnm 16 May 2021 18: 12
    +1
    Even the history department of Tver University did not dispel this myth.

    Colleague, well, for sure, other signers were not hiding either. Likewise, a student of history faculty could view the same copies of the document.
    I don’t know why you had such a conclusion that it was signed by the two sides, because the same unhidden footage of the newsreel shows that not only representatives of the two countries were there.
    Yes, and in the official press it was published with an indication of all the signatories. In the same "Pravda" dated 09.05.45/110/XNUMX # XNUMX.

    More interesting is your opinion, as a historian, regarding the phrase allegedly said to the French .... is there any reliable evidence that Keitel said it or not?


    And yet, colleague. When you write:
    although I understood that the representatives of the allies should have signed this document as well.
    note, nevertheless, who are the signatories of the act and as whom this document was signed by the representatives of the allies. They signed the Act, not as parties to it, but as WITNESSES (except for Tedder).
    So, your claims to Soviet historiography are not fair. She told you the truth.
  4. Avior
    Avior 16 May 2021 18: 55
    +1
    In reality, the act of surrender of Germany was signed in Reims on May 7, with the participation of the Soviet representative Susloparov.
    It stipulated that the surrender of the German troops would be at 23.01 on May 8, in Moscow this corresponds to 00.01 on May 9.

    At Stalin's insistence, as you know, after Germany's surrender at 23.01, a ceremony was organized with the participation of Zhukov with the signing of the act at 23.43 on May 8, that is, retroactively, which makes the second signing more a theatrical element, giving solemnity rather than a real act.
    1. nnm
      nnm 16 May 2021 19: 04
      +3
      I would not say what it was
      Quote: Avior
      theatrical element

      - rather, a deliberate political step that consolidates the decisive contribution to the Victory of the USSR.
      1. Avior
        Avior 16 May 2021 19: 09
        -2
        At what point in this act was it fixed?
        this signing took place after the agreed moment of the surrender of the Germans - and in this version of the act, by the way, the time is also indicated at 23.01, that is, at the time of signing, the surrender had already taken place - which reduces its legal significance to zero, theatricalized to give solemnity - yes, with this point of view made sense, but no more.
        1. nnm
          nnm 16 May 2021 19: 21
          +4
          Colleague, I think you know the catch phrase "vae victis" - "woe to the vanquished"! And therefore, the main winner of Germany, the USSR, had the right to decide when to accept the surrender, when to count the date!
          The allies could sign an act at least every hour, but the war with Germany ended only with the signing of the order of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief dated 09.05.45 # 369. I advise you to familiarize yourself with its content and pay attention to the basis of which act it was issued.
          Colleague, before you write just for the sake of causing a noise - if you please, first study the materiel.
          1. Avior
            Avior 16 May 2021 20: 13
            +1
            I studied, unlike you.
            the end of the war with Germany associated with its unconditional surrender to all allies at the same time is an agreed decision of all allies, repeatedly agreed and approved by them, including the USSR, this is the end of the war with Germany.
            This happened on 23.01 on May 8 CET, that is, 00.01 on May 9 - Moscow time.
            Not a single version of the act and the June Declaration on the defeat of Germany, also signed by all allies, including the USSR, is there anything about the special role of the USSR.
            the order you are writing about is an internal Soviet document.
        2. lucul
          lucul 16 May 2021 19: 50
          -3
          this signing took place after the agreed moment of the surrender of the Germans - and in this version of the act, too, by the way, the time is indicated at 23.01, that is, at the time of signing, the surrender had already taken place

          And what kind of surrender is this if Berlin was captured by the Russians? ))))
          1. Avior
            Avior 16 May 2021 21: 07
            +3
            so what?
            the Germans could not fight further if Berlin was captured?
            They fought by the way.
            1. lucul
              lucul 16 May 2021 21: 23
              -5
              the Germans could not fight further if Berlin was captured?
              They fought by the way

              Exactly until the end of ammunition and fuel - if Berlin fell, then who will provide them with logistics? )))
              1. Avior
                Avior 16 May 2021 22: 28
                -1
                the capture of the capital does not mean an automatic victory over the country
                the leadership and headquarters of Germany and the Wehrmacht moved from Berlin
                hi
                1. lucul
                  lucul 17 May 2021 10: 24
                  -6
                  there should have been the original signature of Zhukov. But he is not.

                  Have you moved where? On the one hand, the Russians, on the other, the allies, in fact, there was no place for Germany itself. )))
                  1. Avior
                    Avior 17 May 2021 13: 54
                    +2
                    Ask where. Not all of Germany was captured at that time
              2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 16 May 2021 22: 39
                +3
                Quote: lucul
                if Berlin fell, who would provide the logistics for them? )))

                laughing Have all the logisticians been in Berlin?
              3. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 17 May 2021 10: 23
                +1
                Quote: lucul
                Exactly until the end of cartridges and fuel

                )))
                It was Jodl who wanted to do this moment with the Allies. They had both the opportunity and the desire. Eisenhower has not yet given a fight
                1. lucul
                  lucul 17 May 2021 10: 28
                  -6
                  It was Jodl who wanted to do this moment with the Allies. They had both the opportunity and the desire. Eisenhower has not yet given a fight

                  I am afraid that Germany would drag out another couple of months of the war, and they could completely reduce their gene pool to nothing.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 17 May 2021 10: 51
                    +3
                    No, on the contrary. Although of course more depended on the Allies.

                    The meaning of the continuation of the war for the Reich is to withdraw the population from the GDR. In parallel, the Allies could significantly advance to the East in the area of ​​operation of the GA Center and in the Balkans. The issue of the monument to Konev in Prague would have been resolved, so to speak, in the bud. Unfortunately for everyone, Eisenhower was far from such considerations, and Truman had not yet entered the course.
                    1. lucul
                      lucul 17 May 2021 11: 29
                      -5
                      No, on the contrary.

                      And what could have stopped the spacecraft of 1945 at that time? ))))
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 17 May 2021 12: 29
                        +2
                        Quote: lucul
                        And what could have stopped the spacecraft of 1945 at that time? ))))

                        Weird question. First, the Red Army in 45 has the usual logistical problems. Preparation of any operation takes weeks and months. Second, the powers of the Red Army end where the powers of the Allies begin. Berlin was snatched by a miracle. Comrade Stalin expected Eisenhower to change his mind every day, hence the race.

                        And Comrade was right. Stalin, one must admit. If Monty hadn't dug in, the British could hardly have problems with the Vistula GA. In reality, Heinrici went to the British and Plön surrender, otherwise they would have come to him themselves.

                        In general, the only person in Europe who did not need Berlin was Eisenhower.
                      2. lucul
                        lucul 17 May 2021 18: 19
                        0
                        Berlin was snatched by a miracle

                        Yes, yes, yes, I know this version - in Russia everything is a miracle, and everything is with the help of General Moroz. ))))
                        But in fact - the Germans took Stalingrad for a year and did not take it, and the Russians took Berlin in 2 weeks.
                      3. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 17 May 2021 19: 07
                        +2
                        Quote: lucul
                        all with the help of General Frost. ))))

                        General Frost? In April 45 there was no frost. On the contrary, the Oder spill forced to plan the operation for the beginning of May, the postponement to mid-April was a forced decision. And the generals were not called Frost, but Eisenhower and Montgomery. They helped mainly by their incompetence and their cockroaches.
                        Quote: lucul
                        the Germans took Stalingrad for a year and did not take it, and the Russians took Berlin in 2 weeks.

                        First, it is worth inquiring about the course of the Battle of Stalingrad, it seems that it has fallen out of your memory. Secondly, after Hitler's decisions earlier (from the Ardennes to the March transfer of the tank reserves of the GA Vistula to the GA Center), the Germans could no longer hold Berlin, but the Americans could rush, if not to Berlin, then to the north, to Stetsin, tearing down the encirclement of the city - yes, there were such options.
                    2. Black lotos
                      Black lotos 17 May 2021 20: 06
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      In general, the only person in Europe who did not need Berlin was Eisenhower.

                      and he's American. He also remembered that his country also had a Pacific front. And there, too, the war continued.
                      Although he is a future politician and should have understood the future meaning of all these Berlin and Prague ..
                    3. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 17 May 2021 20: 44
                      +2
                      You are trying to combine two unsuccessful rationalizations of American behavior.
                      1. They could not afford to throw Stalin, because Stalin was needed to defeat Japan. It is easy to see that for an American general, such reasons look simply offensive. They are attributed not to Eisenhower, but to Roosevelt in Yalta. Most likely wrong.
                      2. Eisenhower was eyeing the presidential chair, allegedly promised to him by Truman. This is complete nonsense, who can promise what for 8 years in advance. Moreover, in the 52nd Aiki was elected from the Republicans.

                      The situation is simple.
                      1. A number of SES mistakes delayed their onset. The bridgehead on the Elbe appeared only on 12 April. There was an opportunity to march to Berlin with a parade, taking into account the mood of Busse, Wenck, Heinrici, and a number of others, but to take by storm (the Red Army carried out the operation with the forces of 3 fronts) - absolutely not, it was necessary at least a month to gather forces and bring up tactical aviation. Eisenhower was not going to catch such chances. I hate him very much, but he was definitely not a headless horseman, rather the opposite.
                      2. The Roosevelt administration - and Truman did not change these guidelines - made it clear that the zones of occupation stipulated a year earlier would be respected. That is, everything that the Americans will fight in the Soviet zone - they will give the USSR for free. This is what happened south of Berlin. The same Leipzig was taken by the Americans, but they gave it to the GDR even before Potsdam. It turned out that American soldiers - even a thousand, even one - died in vain... Eisenhower didn't subscribe to that.
            2. Avior
              Avior 17 May 2021 14: 02
              +2
              Both Friedeburg and Jodl and Dönitz himself wanted to capitulate only in the West and continue the war in the East.
              Eisenhower dismissed this proposal as unacceptable
  • lucul
    lucul 16 May 2021 19: 34
    -5
    In reality, the act of surrender of Germany was signed in Reims on May 7, with the participation of the Soviet representative Susloparov.

    Yeah, the Germans capitulated to the British and Amers, but not to the Russians.
    The second act is precisely the surrender of the Germans to the Russians.
    1. Avior
      Avior 16 May 2021 20: 20
      +3
      Why is Major General Ivan Alekseevich Susloparov, the official representative of the Soviet command, not Russian to you?
      The act of surrender of Germany bears his signature on a par with the signature of Smith, the representative of the Allies.
      here it is this act of surrender of Germany

      At the time of the signing of the second act, the surrender of the Germans had already taken place, which is noted in both versions of the Act.
      1. lucul
        lucul 16 May 2021 20: 25
        -2
        Why is Major General Ivan Alekseevich Susloparov, the official representative of the Soviet command, not Russian to you?

        He was there in the role of a witness to the surrender of the Germans to the Anglo-Saxons and Amers, and not as a representative from the USSR. Secondly, no one would have authorized him to sign the surrender, for this there were other people who signed it.
        If this elementaryism is incomprehensible to you, then I am powerless here.
        1. Avior
          Avior 16 May 2021 21: 03
          0
          none of this follows from the text of the Act of surrender.
          He signed the act under exactly the same conditions as the American Smith, the representative of the Allies, and not as a witness (as a witness signed by a Frenchman. Nobody signed from the British).
          Both of them signed as attending, as did Zhukov later.
          he was there as an official representative of the Soviet command.
          about the alleged arbitrariness when signing, Stalin had no complaints against him about the signing of the Act.
          If this elementaryism is incomprehensible to you, then I am powerless here.
          1. lucul
            lucul 16 May 2021 21: 17
            +2
            he was there as an official representative of the Soviet command.
            about the alleged arbitrariness when signing, Stalin had no complaints against him about the signing of the Act.

            Capitulation - an agreement to end the struggle, is signed by the plenipotentiary representatives of the parties. Ivan Alekseevich Susloparov was not a plenipotentiary representative of the USSR, he was just a general. The capitulation of the Germans to the Anglo-Saxons and Amers was made in a hurry, only to overtake the USSR and Moscow did not know anything about it. And this was done so that the USSR was superfluous on the territory of Germany after the surrender, they say, the surrender was to the allies, and not to the USSR. And the USSR would have had, after May 9, to withdraw its troops to its border with Poland.
            But Stalin quickly cut through the trick, and forced the Germans to surrender to the USSR, thereby legalizing their troops on German territory.
            Nobody signed from the British)

            Ie you want to say that the peace between Germany and Britain has not yet been signed? )))
            1. Avior
              Avior 16 May 2021 21: 38
              +1
              Surrender - an agreement to end the fight

              misunderstanding
              unconditional surrender is not a treaty, as can be seen from the text of both the first Act and the second.
              The act of surrender is a statement by the German side about their fulfillment of the obligations set forth in the Act.
              The allies do not agree with them about anything - the Germans simply sign the Act in their presence, this is written in the text of both Acts. And that's all.
              Plus there are signatures of witnesses of the signing.
              Ivan Alekseevich Susloparov was not the plenipotentiary representative of the USSR

              there is generally no talk of any plenipotentiary representatives of either the USSR, or England, or the United States.
              There, representatives of the military command appear everywhere, both Susloparov and Zhukov, which they both were.
              By the way, below I gave an English copy, on which there is no Zhukov's signature at all.
              1. lucul
                lucul 16 May 2021 21: 42
                -5
                misunderstanding
                unconditional surrender is not a treaty, as can be seen from the text of both the first Act and the second.

                Well, read for yourself what an unconditional surrender is - whoever surrendered is in control of the country. And the Germans surrendered on May 7
                Anglo-Saxons with amers, not the USSR.
                But Stalin forced Germany to capitulate to the USSR on May 8, thereby legalizing the territories of Germany conquered by the USSR.
                By the way, below I gave an English copy, on which there is no Zhukov's signature at all.

                Well, the copier hadn't been invented yet)))
                1. Avior
                  Avior 16 May 2021 22: 15
                  +1
                  Well, read it yourself

                  read
                  Germany's act of surrender is a purely military act, there is no political component there.
                  And the Germans surrendered on May 7
                  Anglo-Saxons with amers, not the USSR.

                  not. read the text of the Act, there is no such thing in the text. They surrendered to everyone.
                  But Stalin forced Germany to capitulate to the USSR on May 8

                  at this point, surrender had already been made.
                  in general, read the thread, everything has already been written.
                  Well, the copier hadn't been invented yet)))

                  there should have been the original signature of Zhukov. But he is not.
                  hi
                  1. lucul
                    lucul 17 May 2021 10: 16
                    -4
                    Germany's act of surrender is a purely military act, there is no political component there.

                    Have you read about the powers of the winning side? There, up to the change of country borders at the discretion of the winner.
                    They surrendered to everyone.

                    Yeah, that is, let's say Australia, as a winner, could take the Ruhr basin for itself, or let's say the production of V-2 missiles? )))
                    there should have been the original signature of Zhukov. But he is not.

                    Yeah, the surrender on May 8 was filmed on camera, and Zhukov signed the act there under the camera that everyone can see, but Zhukov's signature is not there? ))))
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 18 May 2021 14: 16
                      -1
                      Do you believe your eyes?
                      I brought a copy
                      Please provide an English-language copy with Zhukov's signature.
                      As for the text of the fact, this is not an agreement or an agreement.
                      This is a confirmation of the German side's agreement to fulfill the stated conditions, no one agreed with them about anything.
                      Reparations issues were decided collectively by the heads of the Allies, and not by Australia or the USSR personally - read the Potsdam Agreement.
                  2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
                    Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 17 May 2021 15: 57
                    +2
                    Quote: Avior
                    read
                    Germany's act of surrender is a purely military act, there is no political component there.

                    Yes, it's all in vain. He is unaware that there is only one subject of surrender - the surrender himself, the rest of the defendants only assure the fact with their signatures. Apparently, my friend in the notary has never been. laughing
  • chenia
    chenia 17 May 2021 09: 23
    -3
    Quote: Avior
    In reality, the act of surrender of Germany was signed in Reims on May 7, with the participation of the Soviet representative Susloparov


    And who authorized the gene. Susloparov to sign this act? On the same grounds, it was possible to put the signature of his adjutant or his cook.

    In fact, the end was put in Berlin in early May, and the signing of the act is
    Quote: Avior
    theatrical element


    So in Reims, this is a separate agreement of the allies - and this is the most that can be squeezed out of this puss.
    1. Avior
      Avior 18 May 2021 14: 20
      0
      And what, they punished Susloparov for arbitrariness?
      Who told you that he did not have the authority to sign his presence at the signing of the Act by Jodl?
      In general, he was a representative of the Soviet command and in this capacity, nothing prevented him from putting his signature
      About a separate thing - complete nonsense, enough to fence, it was signed by the official representative of the Soviet command
      1. chenia
        chenia 18 May 2021 14: 48
        0
        Quote: Avior
        Who told you


        I told you. And Susloparov rushed about, gave the request, the answer is known. And subsequent events have shown this.
        Quote: Avior
        And what, they punished Susloparov for arbitrariness?

        Carried away, the mood was festive, we relaxed.
        Quote: Avior
        sign for his presence at the signing of the Act by Jodem?

        I also speak. any of our cooks could (also represent something) ..
        Quote: Avior
        About separate - complete nonsense

        Obviously nonsense (to you). Therefore, we repeated it.
        1. Avior
          Avior 18 May 2021 15: 03
          0
          ... I told you. And Susloparov rushed about, gave the request, the answer is known. And subsequent events have shown this.

          This is an internal affair of the Soviet side
          Susloparov's signature under the Act was not officially canceled by the Soviet side, which means that it is automatically legal and recognized by the USSR. Moreover, the surrender of the Germans took place before the second Act was signed - as indicated in both the first and the second Act - that is, it passed only under the first act
          About the cook, she could, if she was the official representative of the Soviet command, like Susloparov.
          Obviously nonsense (to you).

          Nonsense for everyone. 1. The Soviet command did not annul the signature of Susloparov
          2. In the text of the Act of surrender, there is no statement that the act concerns only one side - the act concerned all German troops, no matter who they fought - they surrendered equally at 23-01.
          Therefore, the stories of separate surrender are double nonsense
          3. Unconditional surrender to all parties at the same time was agreed in advance, this is how it happened, so this is nonsense for the third time
          4. All other issues, in addition to purely military surrender, were resolved by other documents
          5. The act of surrender would have been valid even if Susloparov's signature had not been, it was the surrender of the Germans, and Susloparov only confirmed with his signature that Jodl's signature was in his presence.
          On the Act in Reims, by the way, there is no signature of the representative of the English side - but no one questions it from the British
          6. On the second Act there is no signature of Zhukov under the English version - this also does not call the surrender of the Germans into question.
          7. In fact, the very fact that in the first and in the second case only the Germans signed.
          The rest simply confirmed that it was in their presence.
          1. chenia
            chenia 18 May 2021 15: 34
            0
            Quote: Avior
            in the second case, only the Germans signed.
            The rest simply confirmed that it was in their presence.

            What do you mean?

            Quote: Avior
            even if the signature of Susloparov was not there, it was the surrender of the Germans

            Weidling (German) also signed something, and the others just confirmed? Yes, and Krebs mumbled about the truce, and only Stalin rejected (neither Chuikov nor Zhukov took responsibility).

            I confirm. what surrender is this theatrical act and should take place according to the instructions of the director, and the Germans are the performers. And as they said and so they did (they said to repeat the take). And so it was. POINT.
            1. Avior
              Avior 18 May 2021 17: 12
              +1
              The second signing is a theatrical act. I originally wrote about this.
              Since it was already after the surrender of the Germans
              And - read the Act - who signed what and why, everything is there and you will have less surprises, as well as arguments in vain.
              hi
              1. chenia
                chenia 18 May 2021 18: 00
                0
                Quote: Avior
                The second signing is a theatrical act.

                And the first too. Signed, not signed by the Germans, no one asked. And with Japan too. The procedure is theater.

                So, the chief director (Stalin) said to repeat, and everything was accepted for execution.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 18 May 2021 20: 19
                  0
                  Stalin had nothing to do with the signing of the Act of Germany's surrender, he found out after the fact.
                  The text of the second repeated the first, and the second was signed after the surrender of the Germans, which is noted in the acts.
                  It made sense only as a theatrical event.
  • north 2
    north 2 16 May 2021 19: 17
    -3
    even with the signing of the act of surrender of Germany, Churchill and Roosevelt tried to deceive Stalin, to belittle the contribution of the USSR to the Victory over fascism and, at least in some way, but to save the honor of Nazism. Therefore, they insisted that the act of surrender signed by representatives of Germany, the Western Allies and the USSR in French Reims on May 7 is an act of surrender of Germany. But Stalin did not agree with such a surrender of Germany, stating that the act should be signed there from where Nazism crawled out and crawled in war to Europe and the USSR. And the act of May 7, signed in Reims, at Stalin's insistence, was considered a preliminary act of Germany's surrender. To which Churchill agreed and replied that today the Western Allies think about themselves, but tomorrow they still need to think about the USSR, which made a great contribution to the victory over fascism and will agree with the place where Stalin proposed for signing the final act. So the final and valid act of Germany's surrender was signed on May 8, the day after the preliminary act signed on May 7 in Reims. It was signed somewhere around 22 pm on May 8 CET, which corresponded to somewhere around the first hour of the night on May 9 Moscow time. Therefore, our Motherland of the USSR and today's Russia and all the people of the world are grateful to the Red Army for the Victory over Nazism, Victory Day and celebrates May 9.
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 16 May 2021 19: 53
      +8
      ... even with the signing of the German surrender act, Churchill and Roosevelt tried to deceive Stalin,


      Roosevelt did not live to see Victory Day and the signing of the act of surrender, he died on April 12, 1945, at age 63. Vice President Harry Truman became the President of the United States.

      You at least occasionally glanced at the history textbook.
      1. Normal ok
        Normal ok 16 May 2021 23: 30
        +1
        a colleague like him doesn't care about facts.
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 16 May 2021 23: 43
          +3
          It looks like you are right, Peter. request
          He broadcasts as a propagandist of the old party school, reading hackneyed phrases from a shabby general notebook. Some clichés and continuous sloganism, the thought is not traced there in any way.
      2. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
        Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 17 May 2021 15: 58
        +1
        Quote: Sea Cat
        Roosevelt did not live to see Victory Day and the signing of the act of surrender, he died on April 12, 1945,

        The damned Roosevelt reached out! laughing
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 17 May 2021 16: 24
          +1
          An imperialist, in a word! laughing
      3. Black lotos
        Black lotos 17 May 2021 20: 10
        0
        Quote: Sea Cat
        Roosevelt did not live to see Victory Day and the signing of the act of surrender, he died on April 12, 1945, at age 63. Vice President Harry Truman became the President of the United States.

        Roosevelt's role for the USSR is hard to miss. Although Truman tried (just with a plus sign, then with a minus sign)
        It was Roosevelt's position, not Churchill's, that was more convenient for Stalin.
    2. Avior
      Avior 16 May 2021 20: 38
      -1
      In the text of both acts, the moment of the official end of the war is indicated - the moment of the surrender of the German troops.
      This is 23.01 May 8 CET, which corresponds to 00.01 May 9 Moscow time.
      Therefore, May 9 is the official day of the end of the war with Germany.
      hi
    3. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 17 May 2021 09: 58
      +1
      Quote: north 2
      Churchill and Roosevelt tried to deceive Stalin, to belittle the contribution of the USSR in the Victory over fascism and, at least in some way, but to save the honor of Nazism

      )))
      Unfortunately not.
      Quote: north 2
      To which Churchill agreed and replied that today the Western Allies think about themselves, but tomorrow they still need to think about the USSR, which made a great contribution to the victory over fascism.

      Churchill was just not happy. He had a sense of historicity. But Truman did not have such a feeling, he fell for bullshit. If the USSR was notified about the victory over Germany - history would look completely different, even with other things being equal.
  • Avior
    Avior 16 May 2021 19: 31
    -2
    By the way, in the above image of the Act of May 8, it is clear that in the Russian version the lines are shifted - "In the presence" does not really refer to the Germans, but to the signatures of Tedder and Zhukov.
    this can be seen from the English version.
    but the most interesting and strange thing is that the English version of Zhukov was not allowed to sign

    It seems that the papers on May 8 were prepared and signed in a hurry, so the Russian and English versions differ in terms of signatures, although they should have been identical.
  • alystan
    alystan 16 May 2021 19: 40
    +5
    I don’t know about others, but I was immediately confused by the font of the text of the Act, a complete similarity to Times New Roman?
    And then all sorts of bad thoughts arose in my head.
    A question for those versed in typographic issues (of that historical period of time) - was the font similar to the TNR I mentioned above?
    Or it just seems to me and in vain I put a shadow on the fence ...
    1. Avior
      Avior 16 May 2021 20: 27
      0
      and you are a big-eyed guy :)

      this is how he looked real
      and my remark that the English and Russian versions were different in design immediately disappears.
      But the problem of the fact that Zhukov's signature is not in the English version - one of the two having equal force, according to the text - it remains
  • Catfish
    Catfish 16 May 2021 19: 44
    +1

    Tedder, Zhukov and Spaats - "washing" the act of surrender of Germany.

    PS And Tedder turns out to be not just Tedder, but Arthur Tedder, 1st Baron Tedder - Arthur Tedder, XNUMXst Baron Tedder Wikipedia site: wikichi.ru. How! Not like ordinary guys from the people of Zhukov and Spaats. smile
    1. Avior
      Avior 16 May 2021 21: 12
      +1
      yes, the holiday was a success :)

      The gala dinner ended in the morning with songs and dances. Soviet generals danced out of competition. I, too, could not resist and, remembering my youth, danced "Russian". They dispersed and dispersed to the sound of cannon fire, which was made from all types of weapons on the occasion of victory. Shooting took place in all districts of Berlin and its suburbs. They shot upwards, but fragments of mines, shells and bullets fell to the ground, and it was not entirely safe to walk on the morning of May 9.
  • Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 16 May 2021 20: 48
    -6
    I don’t understand, but what does the victory have to do with France? France fought on the side of Germany, although not very actively and only in 1944 did the heroes defect.
    1. svp67
      svp67 16 May 2021 21: 04
      +2
      Quote: Victor Sergeev
      and only in 1944 did the heroes go over.

      And from 01.09.1939/22.06.1940/XNUMX to XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX for whom did France fight?
      1. Viktor Sergeev
        Viktor Sergeev 18 May 2021 12: 48
        -2
        First, in 1939, France did not fight (and even more so since September 1, learn history), they threw Poland like suckers. A declaration of war is not war. Well, in 40 they surrendered, and did not fight, it was not a war, but a shame. But after 1940 they fought well in the USSR and against England. I know one thing: in 1945, the Second World War ended, which began on June 22, 1941, and I absolutely do not care who these or those countries were before the start of this war, one fact is important to me: at the time of the attack on the USSR, France supported Germany, lived happily and satiated when our children, women, old people died of hunger. In that war (in WWII and the war for Britain, and not in the fictional WW2), only the USSR, England, USA, Tuva, Mongolia, Yugoslavia and Greece fought against Germany, the rest successfully surrendering or joining voluntarily processed Germany by giving volunteers, weapons, equipment , resources and products.
        1. svp67
          svp67 19 May 2021 15: 30
          0
          Quote: Victor Sergeev
          First, in 1939, France did not fight (and even more so since September 1, learn history),

          Ha, ha ... Well, you said ... The French already in September began to conduct an offensive operation and as a result of border clashes by September 13, 1939, the French managed to relatively easily occupy two sections of German territory protruding forward - the "Warndt" section west of Saarbrücken and the protrusion of the border between Saarbrücken and the Palatinate Forest.
          So, near Saarbrücken, eleven divisions immediately stormed the German positions, breaking through 32 kilometers ahead. In total, the French managed to take 12 settlements in a week: Gersheim, Medelsheim, In, Niedergeilbach, Bliesmengen, Ludweiler, Brenschelbach, Lauterbach, Nidaltdorf, Kleinblittersdorf, Auersmacher and Sitterswald (later Hitlersdorf).


          French soldiers from the 42nd Infantry Division on a street in the Saar town of Lauterbach. September 9, 1939.
          1. Viktor Sergeev
            Viktor Sergeev 19 May 2021 18: 50
            0
            Well, yes, it's funny, and those who call this "war" by such a concept as "strange war" are also laughing. Yeah they fought, rather they were engaged in imitation of war. Almost all the forces of Germany were in Poland, and these imitated and calmed down. Ash fought for a whole year.
            1. svp67
              svp67 20 May 2021 11: 15
              0
              Quote: Victor Sergeev
              Ash fought for a whole year.

              And nevertheless ... there were air battles, artillery skirmishes ... until the Germans, decisively, all this did not stop
              1. Viktor Sergeev
                Viktor Sergeev 20 May 2021 18: 40
                0
                Well, yes, they were shooting, they call it a war. Well, then we entered WW2 on July 29, 1938, because the clashes on Hasan were more abrupt than the "war" waged by France in 1939.
                1. svp67
                  svp67 21 May 2021 06: 27
                  0
                  Quote: Victor Sergeev
                  Well, then we entered WW2 on July 29, 1938, because the clashes on Hassan were more abrupt than the "war" waged by France in 1939.

                  If we support China, in its demand to postpone the date of the beginning of World War II to July 07, 1937
                  1. Viktor Sergeev
                    Viktor Sergeev 21 May 2021 17: 21
                    +1
                    I agree with China, ours, the British, the French, the Chinese, and many others fought in that war. It's just that the story was composed by the Anglo-Saxons, and we borrowed from some kind of fright.
  • parusnik
    parusnik 16 May 2021 20: 59
    +2
    I went in to look, looked, and the spears, spears were broken, I couldn't get through. smile
  • svp67
    svp67 16 May 2021 21: 03
    +1
    But interestingly, the structure of the German Armed Forces included not only the Wehrmacht (Keitel), the Luftwaffe (von Friedeburg), the Kriegsmarine (Stumpf) but also the Waffen SS. And by the time the surrender was signed, they had not yet been recognized by the CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION as part of the SS and they were also independent from the Wehrmacht, why was there no representative from them?
    1. Avior
      Avior 16 May 2021 21: 49
      -1
      the structure of the German Armed Forces included not only the Wehrmacht (Keitel), the Luftwaffe (von Friedeburg), the Kriegsmarine (Stumpf)

      in fact, the Wehrmacht is the general name for all the armed forces of Germany. The German ground forces, to which we mistakenly apply the name Wehrmacht, were actually called Heer. It sounds dissonant in Russian, therefore it is rarely used.
      Army Waffen SS were part of the high command of the Wehrmacht - OKW (from German Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, German OKW).
      hi
    2. north 2
      north 2 16 May 2021 22: 44
      -1
      I agree with you that the Waffen SS representative also had to sign the act of military surrender. The difference between SS units and Waffen SS units is that by the end of the war, the Waffen SS was formed from legionnaires of a non-German nation, because there were no longer enough Germans. This is how Waffen SS units appeared from Latvians, Finns, Tatars, Ukrainians, Hungarians and even Russians. And the Russian units were commanded in my opinion by a certain Kaminsky. If the SS itself was subordinate to Himmler, then it can be assumed that the Waffen SS were subordinate to Himmler, because they fought not only at the front, but also participated in the actions of the Isatzgroups and carried out genocide. And this was "in charge" of Himmler. Why there was no representative from the Waffen SS when the act of surrender was signed, this is of course a question ...
  • vitvit123
    vitvit123 16 May 2021 21: 21
    +2
    Thank you for the article . Added to bookmarks ..
    1. Pavel Gusterin
      17 May 2021 04: 53
      +3
      Please.
  • Konnick
    Konnick 16 May 2021 22: 31
    +1
    Quote: Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
    Quote: lucul
    Keitel warrior,

    laughing
    Nothing that drove this 'warrior' was 'Lackeytel'?

    Yes, but he behaved courageously on the scaffold, unlike the others, he even uttered the phrase "deutschland über alles", so he can be considered a warrior, despite his Nazi beliefs.
    1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
      Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 17 May 2021 09: 31
      +1
      Quote: Konnick
      Yes, but he behaved courageously on the scaffold, unlike the rest

      Nonsense about the rest. All 11 sentenced retained the remnants of their dignity before execution.
      Quote: Konnick
      even uttered the phrase "deutschland über alles"

      Nonsense. Here are Keitel's last words:
      Ich rufe den Allmächtigen an, er möge sich des deutschen Volkes erbarmen. Über zwei Millionen deutscher Soldaten sind vor mir für ihr Vaterland in den Tod gegangen. Ich folge meinen Söhnen nach. Alles für Deutschland

      Time: 01.44.
      "Everything for Germany" is not "Germany above all" at all. Why juggle?
      Quote: Konnick
      despite his Nazi beliefs.

      By the way, about beliefs - Julius Streicher also did not shout “Heil Hitler!” Before the rope, as it is presented to add odiousness to this Nazi ass. His last words were addressed to his wife:
      Adele - meine liebe Frau
      1. Konnick
        Konnick 17 May 2021 09: 59
        +2
        Respect for your comment. Witnesses are still alive laughing
        1. Paragraph Epitafievich Y.
          Paragraph Epitafievich Y. 17 May 2021 10: 12
          +1
          Quote: Konnick
          Witnesses are still alive

          Not. The executioners' manuscripts do not burn) The longest stream, by the way, was pushed by Kaltenbrunner.
  • Normal ok
    Normal ok 16 May 2021 22: 34
    +1
    "... there were people in our time
    not like the current tribe,
    heroes, not you "