The Day The Entire German Fleet Surrendered

[AndreasB]

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30128199

Ein paar schoene Bilder.

Alles Gute

Andreas

[Urs Heßling]

moin, Andreas,
gut gefunden 
Nur der Begriff "surrender" = Kapitulation" ist natürlich historisch nicht zutreffend.

Gruß, Urs

[RePe]

Hallo Urs,

"surrender" = Kapitulation" ist natürlich historisch nicht zutreffend.

Natürlich richtig. Aber mein Wörterbuch bietet für "surrender" noch als Variante an "aufgeben/Aufgabe" im Sinne von einen Widerstand
beenden. Vielleicht hats der Autor so gemeint (immer positiv denken!).

     RePe

[Teddy Suhren]

We beat them two times - ist alles was da steht.
Hand over hätte es auch getan.

[AndreasB]

Im Englischen ist das schon korrekt, das Wort hat eine zweifache Bedeutung. Wenn sich ein Verdaechtiger der Polizei stellt sagt man auch 'the suspect surrendered himself to Police', oder wenn man Dokumente an ein Gericht uebergibt sagt man 'the documents were surrendered to the court'.

Hand over waere nicht so zutreffend, da es impliziert das man den Englaendern die Schiffe uebergab, was ja nicht der Fall war.

Alles Gute

Andreas

[Urs Heßling]

moin,

versuchen wir einmal eine Klärung anhand des historischen Texts (Versailler Vertrag)

"Article 184
From the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty all the German surface warships which are not in German ports cease to belong to Germany, who renounces all rights over them.
Vessels which, in compliance with the Armistice of November 11, 1918, are now interned in the ports of the Allied and Associated Powers are declared to be finally surrendered."

Demnach wäre das "Date of Surrender" der Tag der Unterzeichnung des Vertrags gewesen (tatsächlich Juni 1919, dem "surrender" kam dann die Selbstversenkung zuvor), aber nicht im November 1918.

Gruß, Urs

[Matrose71]

Salve,

was noch viel schlimmer an dem Artikel ist, dass er die Dolchstoßlegende übernimmt, was für einen schampig recherchierten Artikel spricht.

The blockade of Germany meant that by 1918 it was the Germans who were hungry, not the British. Unrest followed, then a clamour for peace.

Die Revolution war das Resultat der Nierderlage an der Front und nicht umgekehrt, solche Fehler sollten 2014 wirklich nicht mehr passieren.

[Karsten]

moin,

versuchen wir einmal eine Klärung anhand des historischen Texts (Versailler Vertrag)

"Article 184
From the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty all the German surface warships which are not in German ports cease to belong to Germany, who renounces all rights over them.
Vessels which, in compliance with the Armistice of November 11, 1918, are now interned in the ports of the Allied and Associated Powers are declared to be finally surrendered."

Demnach wäre das "Date of Surrender" der Tag der Unterzeichnung des Vertrags gewesen (tatsächlich Juni 1919, dem "surrender" kam dann die Selbstversenkung zuvor), aber nicht im November 1918.

Gruß, Urs

Genaugenommen der 10. Januar 1920, denn erst nach Ratifizierung und Austausch der Vertragsurkunden trat der Vertrag in Kraft.

[AndreasB]

Salve,

was noch viel schlimmer an dem Artikel ist, dass er die Dolchstoßlegende übernimmt, was für einen schampig recherchierten Artikel spricht.

The blockade of Germany meant that by 1918 it was the Germans who were hungry, not the British. Unrest followed, then a clamour for peace.

Die Revolution war das Resultat der Nierderlage an der Front und nicht umgekehrt, solche Fehler sollten 2014 wirklich nicht mehr passieren.

Ah! Was Du dabei aber uebersiehst ist das in dieser Darstellung die Royal Navy den 1. WK gewann. Was die Attraktion der Darstellung schon erklaeren sollte.

Fakten sind optional.

Alles Gute

Andreas

[Garf]

You Germans with your schoolboy English, you make me laugh! The High Sea Fleet was never "surrendered", it was interned. The rest is English propaganda. Wake up.

[Urs Heßling]

hi, Garf,

You Germans with your schoolboy English, you make me laugh! The High Sea Fleet was never "surrendered", it was interned. The rest is English propaganda. Wake up.

Perhaps you might try to read and understand the previous contributions like

Nur der Begriff "surrender" = Kapitulation" ist natürlich historisch nicht zutreffend.

greetings, Urs

[ufo]

You Germans with your schoolboy English, you make me laugh! The High Sea Fleet was never "surrendered", it was interned. The rest is English propaganda. Wake up.

Well, well – English (or should that read British?) propaganda and Germans needing to wake up ...

As a source quite close to the different currents of thought, trends and ideas within the German navies I do like to read the publications of the Marine Offizier Hilfe / Marine Offizier Verband. Sadly my collection is far from complete and I rarely invest in single issues of the newspapers MOH Nachrichten or Nachrichten aus Luv und Lee because it is too tedious to try and follow discussions from fragments but I just did get me a single issue of MOH Nachrichten dating Summer 1939 and low and behold the issue deals with the 20th anniversary of the scuttling of the Hochseeflotte. That made me look back at this thread.

Prof Kapitaen z.S. a.D. Waldeyer-Hartz, a well known chronicler of the German navy and Kapitaenleutnant a.D. von Reiche, last CO Prinzregent Luitpold are writing in length and breadth on the matter. Now, both of them leave no doubt that the vessels where surrendered; left at the mercy of the victors. Neither of them dabbles in semantics, seems to feel any need to sweet-talk the brutal facts. Yes, they do complain at the betrayal of the Entente about interning the High Seas Fleet in a neutral port but they do not shy away from calling a surrender a surrender. Why would they?

The vessels where unarmed, unable to get under way, prohibited from flying their flag, prohibited from communication – how more surrender can surrender be?

Indeed the authors point out that the very valour of the scuttling was to take the ships down under the noses of the victor. Both acknowledge that the British guard ships might have sailed that day for the very purpose of letting the Germans scuttle but they leave no doubt that the act of redemption for the German Navy was to take down surrendered ships. Everyone can scuttle in their home port as the French and the Danes where to show few years later but to scuttle a surrendered fleet in a hostile port takes guts and honour.

Reading this now makes me wonder: why is it nearly a hundred years from the act of such importance to some people that the ships where never surrendered? The German Navy of the years that followed seemingly had no trouble accepting the fact that the High Seas Fleet was just that: surrendered; not legally so but – vae victis – surrendered.

Curious,
Ufo         

[AndreasB]

Die Stimme der Vernunft 

Alles Gute

Andreas

[Matrose71]

Salve,

anscheinend sind ja Fakten dann doch nicht optional!

Was für surrender gilt, solltre dann auch für die nie stattgefundene Dolchstoßlegende gelten, sie fand nicht statt und es ist erbärmlich, von der Faktenseite, dass Gegenteil 2014 in einem Artikel zu schreiben.

[Garf]

Wie sie es Mögen.
Aber, "where never surrendered", as I said schoolboy English.