Did we surrender or not!

Once again Admin goes on and on that the Norwegian state surrendered in 1940:

.....nordmennene ble gitt rett av stort sett de samme folkene som nekter på at alle norske styrker overgav seg i juni 1940. (Som jo er behørig dokumentert men som ikke passer inn i norsk krigshistorie.)


........Norwegians were given right of mostly the same persons who deny that all Norwegian forces surrendered in June 1940. (Which is duly certified but does not fit into the Norwegian war history.)

I will quote Hank (Henrik) O. Lunde in his book:

"Ruge was empowered by the Government to make all arrangements dealing with the German assumption of authority in North Norway. Both representatives (Lieutenant Colonel Harald Wrede Holm was sent to Dietl's headquarter while Lieutenant Colonel Roscher-Nilsen was sent to Trondheim. Both had written authorizations from General Ruge as well as verbal instructions) initiated their contact by stating that the king, government, navy and air force har left the country ant that Norway as a state, continued now and in the future to be at war with Germany. In this regard, it may be of interest to quote from Roscher-Nilsen's description of events when he reported to th German headquarters in Trondheim.(1)

"The negotiations began with Colonel Buschenhagen [von Falkenhorst's chief of staff] asking what kind of negotiating authority I had, whether I came to negotiate a peace or a cease-fire. I answered that I was exclusively authorized to negotiate a cease-fire for the 6th Division in North Norway, which for various reasons no longer could continue the fight"

Buschenhagen then asked Roscher-Nilsen if he was empowered to act on behalf of the Norwegian Navy and Air Force to which the Norwegian answered that he did not have such powers. As to the location of the navy and air force, Roscher-Nilsen answered that he did not know but believed they were outside the country. Roscher-Nilsen's report continues:

"Good" said v B. "It was really what we expected and based on that assumption we have prepared a draft for an arrangement of cease-fire, which we will go through. However I wish to point out to you in advance that you will have full opportunity to present your objections about the various points and your objections will be carefully weighed and, if possible, accepted"


Die Ober Kommando Wehrmacht situation report form June 10 confirms Roscher-Nilsen's acount "... the negotiator emphasizes strongly that despite the end of fighting in Norway, the war continues. It is stressed that the Norwegian naval and air forces have left Norway with the Allies (2) [Underlining and bold letters made by me]

Furthermore the nine-paragraph document signes by Roscher-Nilsen starts with the following statement of purpose, which clearly limits its scope: "In view of the Norwegian 6th Divisions courageous conduct, it is accorded the hounourable conditions set forth below in laying down its weapons." (3)

........

Walther Hubatch takes note of what Ruge said in his proclamation on June 9:

The statement "But the war continues on other fronts - Norwegians are participating in that war..." towards the end of the proclamation are hardly words describing a "total Norwegian capitulation (4)




(1) Reports by Lieutenant Colonel Holm and Roscher-Nilsen as quoted in Sandvik, Operasjoner, vol 2, p 310
(2) Hubatch. Annex A. "Die lagerberichte des Wehrmachtfuhrungsstabes uber di Besetzung con Danemark und Norwegen 7. April - 14. juni 1940, p 373
(3) As quoted in Munthe-Kaas, Krigen, p 213
(4) Hubatch, p 256 And Ruge "Felttoget" p 195

Now, you can list endless of books and articles supporting Norways veiw on the surrender that Ruge signed in june 1940. As we see today in the global warming debate, many scientist and researchers produce the results wanted by people with an agenda. Researchers with a different view is ridiculed and ignored and receive no fundings for further research.
This is also very much the case of several incidents that was "explained" and twisted after the war, to fit the opinion of the winning side. In the future (and now), this will only damage the reputation of historians of the post war period.
I could not care less about the titles that the "historians" and bookwriters had. Noone can dispute the fact that Ruge signed the document surrendering the last armed forces in Norway and since the king and gouvernment had fleed the country, Ruge was the only one left in position to do this.
Norwegian laywers have twisted and turned this matter and of course they claim that Norwegian understanding of the document was right and the Germans where wrong (As all laywers do for their paying client, this also goes for the experts that is paid by their employees for their views), while, among others, neutral Swedish laywers disagree and says the Germans where right.
The case has always been a misunderstanding about the word "gesamten" and the Norwegian translation of this. However the document had a german version as well, and one of the last line in the norwegian version states that if there is any (translation) faults in the Norwegian version, the German version should apply.

Ruge read and understood this, afterall he did not sign a hall pass or a note to his kids teachers. He signed the most important piece of paper in norwegian ww2 history. He was the commander of the last fighting army in Norway and by his surrender, he also surrendered Norway, no need to mention fighting Norwegians with base in another country as this would not be supported by any conventions. Norwegians where free to fight for England or any other country, but they where under the command of the country they fought for.

It is not without reason that the english forces could occupied Norway for a long time after the war, destroying top military equipement and all sorts of tools, machines and at at last, take all the german uboats and sink them shortly after. Norwegians could only see how others destroyed what could be a great addition to a wiped out/ancient equipped army. Now this would not be possible for the allied forces to do if we still where at war with Germany after 10. june 1940.

But as you say, we have been through this many times and on our old forum, we even provided documents that support what I state above. I have no interest in using more time to convince you about my view upon this. You have failed to find material convincing me adjust my view. So there we are, at the same spot as we where last, agreed only to disagree upon this important historical event.

And lastly to avoid confusion; I have no intention to support the Germans and their invasion, but I feel it is extreemly important to present the history as correct as possible and not try to adjust it later on to make it look better.

[quote="AltforNorge"]Die Ober Kommando Wehrmacht situation report form June 10 confirms Roscher-Nilsen's acount "... the negotiator emphasizes strongly that despite the end of fighting in Norway, the war continues. It is stressed that the Norwegian naval and air forces have left Norway with the Allies (2) [Underlining and bold letters made by me]

(2) Hubatch. Annex A. "Die lagerberichte des Wehrmachtfuhrungsstabes uber di Besetzung con Danemark und Norwegen 7. April - 14. juni 1940, p 373

I forgot to mention that I am not seeking to give you obscure motives for your views. I only mean to demonstrate that your conclusions are wrong.

[quote="AltforNorge"]

AltforNorge wrote:Die Ober Kommando Wehrmacht situation report form June 10 confirms Roscher-Nilsen's acount "... the negotiator emphasizes strongly that despite the end of fighting in Norway, the war continues. It is stressed that the Norwegian naval and air forces have left Norway with the Allies (2) [Underlining and bold letters made by me]

(2) Hubatch. Annex A. "Die lagerberichte des Wehrmachtfuhrungsstabes uber di Besetzung con Danemark und Norwegen 7. April - 14. juni 1940, p 373

This does not say anything else that in spite of formally surrendering the rest of the forces continue to fight along with the allies. It happened in all occupied countries in Europe. (For example; many pilots from Poland flew their machines to Romania during the surrender of Poland.)

Hello!
The passage about that the "Navy left for England" is quite exaggerated. In fact, only two gunships (Sleipner and Draug), the submarine B1 and 3 smaller recon vessels did leave. The rest was handed over to the Germans.

The capitulation has been debated numerous times, the only fact that stands, is the final doccument, also known as the "Trondheim treaty". Another fact states the passage "Die gesamten (..)", meaning "All", or "The total number" when it comes to Norwegian forces.

Of course, the treaty does not include any passage of Norwegian men who want to voluntarily enlist for either UK or USA:

: