title: Avebury

text: The purpose which Neolithic people had for the Avebury monument has remained elusive, although many archaeologists have postulated about its meaning and usage. Many suggest that the henge could have been a meeting place for the citizens of the area for seasonal fairs or festivals. During that time the people would have been watching ceremonies or standing on the earthen banks. A lack of pottery and animal bone from excavations at Avebury suggest that the entrance to the henge was prohibited. The lack of "mess" and archaeological finds indicates "sanctity". Many of the stones had former uses before being transported to Avebury. For instance, many of the sarsens had been used to polish stone axes, while others had been "heavily worked".


title: Avebury

text: Archaeologist Aubrey Burl believed that rituals would have been performed at Avebury by Neolithic peoples in order "to appease the malevolent powers of nature" that threatened their existence, such as the winter cold, death and disease.


title: Avebury

text: In his study of those examples found at Orkney, Colin Richards suggested that the stone and wooden circles built in Neolithic Britain might have represented the centre of the world, or "axis mundi", for those who constructed them, something Aaron Watson adopted as a possibility in his discussion of Avebury.


title: Avebury

text: A great deal of interest surrounds the morphology of the stones, which are usually described as being in one of two categories; tall and slender, or short and squat. This has led to numerous theories relating to the importance of gender in Neolithic Britain with the taller stones considered "male" and the shorter ones "female". The stones were not dressed in any way and may have been chosen for their pleasing natural forms.


title: Avebury

text: The human bones found by Gray point to some form of funerary purpose and have parallels in the disarticulated human bones often found at earlier causewayed enclosure sites. Ancestor worship on a huge scale could have been one of the purposes of the monument and would not necessarily have been mutually exclusive with any male/female ritual role.


title: Avebury

text: The henge, although clearly forming an imposing boundary to the circle, could have had a purpose that was not defensive as the ditch is on the inside (this is the defining characteristic of a Henge). Being a henge and stone circle site, astronomical alignments are a common theory to explain the positioning of the stones at Avebury. The relationships between the causewayed enclosure, Avebury stone circles, and West Kennet Long Barrow to the south, has caused some to describe the area as a "ritual complex" – a site with many monuments of interlocking religious function. Based on the scale of the site and wealth of archaeological material found in its ditches, particularly animal bone, it is theorized that the enclosure on Windmill Hill was a major, extra-regional focus for gatherings and feasting events.


title: Avebury

text: Various non-archaeologists as well as pseudoarchaeologists have interpreted Avebury and its neighbouring prehistoric monuments differently from academics. These interpretations have been defined by professional archaeologist Aubrey Burl as being "more phony than factual", and in many cases "entirely untenable". Such inaccurate ideas originated with William Stukeley in the late 17th century, who believed that Avebury had been built by the druids, priests of the Iron Age peoples of north-western Europe, who were persecuted by Roman invaders. Political events such as the Acts of Union 1707 and the Hanoverian succession of 1714 motivated British nationalism and Stukeley’s antiquarian ideals. In the 1720s scholarly opinion was largely based on the idea that the stones were Roman works. Most believed that ancient Britons were “too unsophisticated” to construct an intricate architectural structure. Archaeologists since then have identified the monument as having been constructed two thousand years before the Iron Age, during the Neolithic.


title: Avebury

text: Inigo Jones was the first to suggest that the stones were built by Romans in his book "The Most Notable Antiquity of Great Britain, Vulgarly called Stone-Heng on Salisbury Plain" (1665). The book consisted of architectonic designs, depicting the broken "Roman" construction. The English diarist Thomas Hearne was unsure if the stones had been built by the Romans or the ancient Britons, but Stukeley was confident that the Avebury and associated sites were much older than the Roman period. He denied Jones' theory as “a mere fiction.”


title: Avebury

text: Stukeley determined that by gathering a mass of information about all known stone circles and other archaeological sites, one could build a typology and provide an accurate understanding of prehistoric sites. He formed a typology of “Celtic” stone temples, attempting to associate the monuments with the druids. In his book, “History of the Temples of the Ancient Celts,” he asserted the common characteristics between all stone structures in Britain. In doing so, he wished to advance the Avebury and Stonehenge were developed by ancient inhabitants of Britain.


title: Avebury

text: Stukeley most likely shared his theories with his friends within the Antiquarian Society or the Roman Knights. He was motivated in proving that the Druids had formed the stones because he could prove that ancient Britons were well-informed about science, disproving sceptics like Hearne. Stukeley was interested in proving an association with his antiquarian work and the Avebury stones to provide additional information on the holy doctrine of the Trinity. He believed that the snake illustrated on the stones represented the Messiah and the circle meant “divine,” a symbol for God. In the remaining part of the trinity, wings, which were not depicted on the stones, represent the holy spirit. He concluded that the absence of wings on the pattern of stones at Avebury was because of the challenge of depicting them on stones. Terence Meaden held the theory that Neolithic inhabitants carved faces in the stones.


title: Avebury

text: Following Stukeley, other writers produced inaccurate theories about how Avebury was built and by whom. The Reverend R. Weaver, in his "The Pagan Altar" (1840) argued that both Avebury and Stonehenge were built by Phoenicians, an ancient seafaring people whom many Victorian Britons believed had first brought civilisation to the island. James Fergusson disagreed, and in his "Rude Stone Monuments in All Countries" (1872) put forward the idea that the megalithic monument had been constructed in the Early Mediaeval period to commemorate the final battle of King Arthur, and that Arthur's slain warriors had been buried there. W. S. Blacket introduced a third idea, arguing in his "Researches into the Lost Histories of America" (1883) that it was Native Americans from the Appalachian Mountains who, in the ancient period crossed the Atlantic Ocean to build the great megalithic monuments of southern Britain.


title: Avebury

text: The prominent modern Druid Ross Nichols, the founder of the Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids, believed that there was an astrological axis connecting Avebury to the later megalithic site at Stonehenge, and that this axis was flanked on one side by West Kennet Long Barrow, which he believed symbolised the Mother Goddess, and Silbury Hill, which he believed to be a symbol of masculinity.


title: Avebury

text: Alexander Thom suggested that Avebury was constructed with a site-to-site alignment with Deneb. Researcher and author Paul Devereux deemed the monuments in the Avebury landscape to be associated with one another by “engineered sightlines” towards Silbury Hill. He believed that the terracing towards the top of the mound indicated a connection between the complex constructions in the area. Environmental evidence from buried soil under Silbury Hill showed no evidence of soil disturbance. This could signify that if the sightline Devereux suggested was used, it was very late in the landscape at Avebury.


title: Avebury

text: Avebury's association with crop circles invokes the theory of ley lines. Ley lines are commonly seen as tracks on the land, intersecting at various monuments and landmarks, supposedly connecting "earth energies". They are recalled to be ancient paths that connected sacred spaces. Those who study crop circles claim that the circles are formed by extraterrestrial creatures trying to warn the world about events such as climate change or people trying to communicate from an alternate universe. Others believe in natural methods of explaining the phenomena, such as vortexes or ball lightning. There are a great number of crop circles in Wiltshire, including Stonehenge and Avebury. Crop circle season often begins at the end of May and ends by September, when the harvesting of the crops cuts away the circular patterns.


title: Avebury

text: During the British Iron Age, it appears that the Avebury monument had ceased to be used for its original purpose, and was instead largely ignored, with little archaeological evidence that many people visited the site at this time. Archaeologist Aubrey Burl believed that the Iron Age Britons living in the region would not have known when, why or by whom the monument had been constructed, perhaps having some vague understanding that it had been built by an earlier society or considering it to be the dwelling of a supernatural entity.


title: Avebury

text: In 43 AD, the Roman Empire invaded southern Britain, making alliances with certain local monarchs and subsuming the Britons under their own political control. Southern and central Britain would remain a part of the Empire until the early 5th century, in a period now known as Roman Britain or the Roman Iron Age. It was during this Roman period that tourists came from the nearby towns of Cunetio, Durocornovium and the villas and farms around Devizes and visited Avebury and its surrounding prehistoric monuments via a newly constructed road. Evidence of visitors at the monument during this period has been found in the form of Roman-era pottery sherds uncovered from the ditch.


title: Avebury

text: In the Early Middle Ages, which began in the 5th century following the collapse of Roman rule, Anglo-Saxon tribes from continental Europe migrated to southern Britain, where they may have come into conflict with the Britons already settled there. Aubrey Burl suggested the possibility that a small group of British warriors may have used Avebury as a fortified site to defend themselves from Anglo-Saxon attack. He gained this idea from etymological evidence, suggesting that the site may have been called "weala-dic", meaning "moat of the Britons", in Old English, the language of the Anglo-Saxons.


title: Avebury

text: The early Anglo-Saxon settlers followed their own pagan religion which venerated a selection of deities, the most notable of whom were apparently Woden and Thunor. It is known from etymological sources that they associated many prehistoric sites in the Wiltshire area with their gods, for instance within a ten-mile of radius of Avebury there are four sites that were apparently named after Woden: Wansdyke ("Wodin's ditch"), Wodin's Barrow, Waden Hill ("Wodin's Hill)" and perhaps Wanborough (also "Woden's Hill"). It is not known if they placed any special religious associations with the Avebury monument, but it remains possible.


title: Avebury

text: During the Early Mediaeval period, there were signs of settlement at Avebury, with a "grubenhaus", a type of timber hut with a sunken floor, being constructed just outside the monument's west bank in the 6th century. Only a few farmers appeared to have inhabited the area at the time, and they left the Avebury monument largely untouched. In the 7th and 8th centuries, the Anglo-Saxon peoples began gradually converting to Christianity, and during the 10th century a church was built just west of the monument.


title: Avebury

text: In 939, the earliest known written record of the monument was made in the form of a charter of King Athelstan which defined the boundaries of Overton, a parish adjacent to Avebury. In the following century, invading Viking armies from Denmark came into conflict with Anglo-Saxon groups in the area around Avebury, and it may be that they destroyed Avebury village, for the local prehistoric monument of Silbury Hill was fortified and used as a defensive position, apparently by a local Anglo-Saxon population attempting to protect themselves from Viking aggression.


title: Avebury

text: By the Late Middle Ages, England had been entirely converted to Christianity, and Avebury, being an evidently non-Christian monument, began to be associated with the Devil in the popular imagination of the locals. The largest stone at the southern entrance became known as the Devil's Chair, the three stones that once formed the Beckhampton Cove became known as the Devil's Quoits and the stones inside the North Circle became known as the Devil's Brand-Irons. At some point in the early 14th century, villagers began to demolish the monument by pulling down the large standing stones and burying them in ready-dug pits at the side, presumably because they were seen as having been erected by the Devil and thereby being in opposition to the village's Christian beliefs. Although it is unknown how this situation came about, archaeologist Aubrey Burl suggests that it might have been at the prompting of the local Christian priest, with the likely contenders being either Thomas Mayn (who served in the village from 1298 to 1319), or John de Hoby (who served from 1319 to 1324).


title: Avebury

text: During the toppling of the stones, one of them (which was 3 metres tall and weighed 13 tons), collapsed on top of one of the men pulling it down, fracturing his pelvis and breaking his neck, crushing him to death. His corpse was trapped in the hole that had been dug for the falling stone, and so the locals were unable to remove the body and offer him a Christian burial in a churchyard, as would have been customary at the time. When archaeologists excavated his body in 1938, they found that he had been carrying a leather pouch, in which was found three silver coins dated to around 1320–25, as well as a pair of iron scissors and a lancet. From these latter two items, the archaeologists surmised that he had probably been a travelling barber-surgeon who journeyed between market towns offering his services, and that he just happened to be at Avebury when the stone-felling was in progress.


title: Avebury

text: It appears that the death of the barber-surgeon prevented the locals from pulling down further stones, perhaps fearing that it had in some way been retribution for toppling them in the first place, enacted by a vengeful spirit or even the Devil himself. The event appears to have left a significant influence on the minds of the local villagers, for records show that in the 18th and 19th centuries there were still legends being told in the community about a man being crushed by a falling stone.


title: Avebury

text: Soon after the toppling of many of the stones, the Black Death hit the village in 1349, almost halving the population. Those who survived focused on their agricultural duties to grow food and stay alive. As a result, they would not have had the time or manpower to once more attempt to demolish any part of the non-Christian monument, even if they had wanted to.


title: Avebury

text: It was in the Early modern period that Avebury was first recognised as an antiquity that warranted investigation. Around 1541, John Leland, the librarian and chaplain to King Henry VIII travelled through Wiltshire and made note of the existence of Avebury and its neighbouring prehistoric monuments. Despite this, Avebury remained relatively unknown to anyone but locals and when the antiquarian William Camden published his Latin language guide to British antiquities, "Britannia", in 1586, he made no mention of it. He rectified this for his English language version in 1610, but even in this he only included a fleeting reference to the monument at "Abury", believing it to have been "an old camp". In 1634, it was once more referenced, this time in Sir John Harington's notes to the "Orlando Furioso" opera; however, further antiquarian investigation was prevented by the outbreak of the English Civil War (1642–51), which was waged between the Parliamentarians and Royalists, with one of the battles in the conflict taking place five miles away from Avebury at Roundway Down.


title: Avebury

text: With the war over, a new edition of the "Britannia" was published in 1695, which described the monument at "Aubury" in more detail. This entry had been written by the antiquarian and writer John Aubrey, who privately made many notes about Avebury and other prehistoric monuments which remained unpublished. Aubrey had first encountered the site whilst out hunting in 1649 and, in his own words, had been "wonderfully surprised at the sight of those vast stones of which I had never heard before." Hearing of Avebury and taking an interest in it, King Charles II commanded Aubrey to come to him and describe the site, which he did in July 1663. The two subsequently travelled to visit it together on the monarch's trip to Bath, Somerset a fortnight later, and the site further captivated the king's interest, who commanded Aubrey to dig underneath the stones in search of any human burials. Aubrey, however, never undertook the king's order. In September 1663, Aubrey began making a more systematic study of the site, producing a plan that has proved invaluable for later archaeologists, for it contained reference to many standing stones that would soon after be destroyed by locals.


title: Avebury

text: In the latter part of the 17th and then the 18th centuries, destruction at Avebury reached its peak, possibly influenced by the rise of Puritanism in the village, a fundamentalist form of Protestant Christianity that vehemently denounced things considered to be "pagan", which would have included pre-Christian monuments like Avebury. The majority of the standing stones that had been a part of the monument for thousands of years were smashed up to be used as building material for the local area. This was achieved by lighting a fire to heat the sarsen, then pouring cold water on it to create weaknesses in the rock, and finally smashing at the fire-cracked rock with a sledgehammer.


title: Avebury

text: In 1719, the antiquarian William Stukeley visited the site, where he witnessed the destruction being undertaken by the local people. Between then and 1724 he visited the village and its monument six times, sometimes staying for two or three weeks at the Catherine Wheel Inn. In this time, he made meticulous plans of the site, considering it to be a "British Temple", and believing it to having been fashioned by the druids, the Iron Age priests of north-western Europe, in the year 1859 BC. He developed the idea that the two Inner Circles were a temple to the moon and to the sun respectively, and eventually came to believe that Avebury and its surrounding monuments were a landscaped portrayal of the Trinity, thereby backing up his erroneous ideas that the ancient druids had been followers of a religion very much like Christianity.


title: Avebury

text: Stukeley was disgusted by the destruction of the sarsen stones in the monument, and named those local farmers and builders who were responsible. He remarked that "this stupendous fabric, which for some thousands of years, had brav'd the continual assaults of weather, and by the nature of it, when left to itself, like the pyramids of Egypt, would have lasted as long as the globe, hath fallen a sacrifice to the wretched ignorance and avarice of a little village unluckily plac'd within it."


title: Avebury

text: Stukeley published his findings and theories in a book, "Abury, a Temple of the British Druids" (1743), in which he intentionally falsified some of the measurements he had made of the site to better fit his theories about its design and purpose. Meanwhile, the Reverend Thomas Twining had also published a book about the monument, "Avebury in Wiltshire, the Remains of a Roman Work", which had been published in 1723. Whereas Stukeley claimed that Avebury and related prehistoric monuments were the creations of the druids, Twining thought that they had been constructed by the later Romans, justifying his conclusion on the fact that Roman writers like Julius Caesar and Tacitus had not referred to stone circles when discussing the Iron Age Britons, whereas Late Mediaeval historians like Geoffrey of Monmouth and Henry of Huntingdon had described these megaliths in their works, and that such monuments must have therefore been constructed between the two sets of accounts.


title: Avebury

text: By the beginning of the Victorian era in 1837, the majority of Neolithic standing stones at Avebury had gone, having been either buried by pious locals in the 14th century or broken up for building materials in the 17th and 18th. Meanwhile, the population of Avebury village was rapidly increasing, leading to further housing being built inside the henge. In the 1870s, to prevent further construction on the site, the wealthy politician and archaeologist Sir John Lubbock (later created Baron Avebury) purchased much of the available land in the monument, and encouraged other buyers to build their houses outside rather than within the henge.


title: Avebury

text: Following the opening of his own excavations, archaeologist Alexander Keiller decided that the best way to preserve Avebury was to purchase it in its entirety. Keiller was heir to the James Keiller and Son marmalade business and was able to use his wealth to acquire much of the site between 1924 and 1939. He also acquired Windmill Hill, as much of the Kennet Avenue as possible, and the nearby Avebury Manor, where he was to live until his death in 1955. Keiller sold some of his property to the National Trust in 1943, and they went on to acquire further farmland in the area. The National Trust had a policy to demolish houses within the circle as they fell vacant, but by 1976, those remaining were allowed to stand.


title: Avebury

text: Excavation at Avebury has been limited. In 1894 Sir Henry Meux put a trench through the bank, which gave the first indication that the earthwork was built in two phases. The site was surveyed and excavated intermittently between 1908 and 1922 by a team of workmen under the direction of Harold St George Gray. The discovery of over 40 antler picks on or near the bottom of the ditch enabled Gray to demonstrate that the Avebury builders had dug down into the natural chalk using red deer antlers as their primary digging tool, producing a henge ditch with a high bank around its perimeter. Gray recorded the base of the ditch as being wide and flat, but later archaeologists have questioned his use of untrained labour to excavate the ditch and suggested that its form may have been different. Gray found few artefacts in the ditch-fill but he did recover scattered human bones, amongst which jawbones were particularly well represented. At a depth of about , Gray found the complete skeleton of a tall woman.


title: Avebury

text: During the 1930s, Keiller re-erected many of the stones. Under one, now known as the Barber Stone, the skeleton of a man was discovered. Coins dating from the 1320s were found with the skeleton, and the evidence suggests that the man was fatally injured when the stone fell on him whilst he was digging the hole in which it was to be buried in a mediaeval "rite of destruction". As well as the coins, Keiller found a pair of scissors and a lancet, the tools of a barber-surgeon at that time, hence the name given to the stone.


title: Avebury

text: When a new village school was built in 1969 there was a further opportunity to examine the site, and in 1982 an excavation to produce carbon dating material and environmental data was undertaken.


title: Avebury

text: In April 2003, during preparations to straighten some of the stones, one was found to extend at least below ground. It was estimated to weigh more than 100 tons, making it one of the largest found in the UK. Later that year, a geophysical survey of the southeast and northeast quadrants of the circle by the National Trust revealed at least 15 of the megaliths lying buried. The survey identified their sizes, the direction in which they are lying, and where they fitted in the circle.


title: Avebury

text: The Alexander Keiller Museum features the prehistoric artifacts collected by archaeologist and businessman Alexander Keiller, which include many artifacts found at Avebury. It can reasonably be said that "Avebury today is largely Keiller's creation". A pioneer in the use of aerial archaeology, by the late 1930s Keiller had used his inherited wealth to acquire 950 acres of land around Avebury. He carried out extensive exploratory work which included demolishing newer structures and re-erecting stone pillars, and built the museum now bearing his name. The museum is housed in the 17th-century stables, and is operated by English Heritage and the National Trust. The nearby 17th-century threshing barn houses a permanent exhibit gallery about Avebury and its history.


title: Avebury

text: Founded by Keiller in 1938, the collections feature artifacts mostly of Neolithic and Early Bronze Age date, with other items from the Anglo-Saxon and later periods. The museum also features the skeleton of a child nicknamed "Charlie", found in a ditch at Windmill Hill, Avebury. The Council of British Druid Orders requested that the skeleton be re-buried in 2006, but in April 2010 the decision was made to keep it on public view. From the mid 1960s to her death in 1978, Faith Vatcher was the curator of the museum. She was heavily involved in the excavations on the western side of the henge in 1969 and in what is now the modern day visitor car park, in 1976. The museum collections are owned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and are on loan to English Heritage.


title: Avebury

text: Avebury has been adopted as a sacred site by many adherents of contemporary Pagan religions such as Druidry, Wicca and Heathenry. These worshippers view the monument as a "living temple" which they associate with the ancestors, as well as with genii loci, or spirits of place. Typically, such Pagan rites at the site are performed publicly, and attract crowds of curious visitors to witness the event, particularly on major days of Pagan celebration such as the summer solstice.


title: Avebury

text: Druidic rites held at Avebury are commonly known as "gorseddau" and involve participants invoking "Awen" (a Druidic concept meaning inspiration), with an eisteddfod section during which poems, songs and stories are publicly performed. The Druid Prayer composed by Iolo Morganwg in the 18th century and the later Druid Vow are typically recited. One particular group, known as the Gorsedd of Bards of Caer Abiri, focus almost entirely upon holding their rites at the prehistoric site, referring to it as Caer Abiri. In their original ceremony, composed by Philip Shallcrass of the British Druid Order in 1993, those assembled divide into two groups, one referred to as the God party and the other as the Goddess party. Those with the Goddess party go to the "Devil's Chair" at the southern entrance to the Avebury henge, where a woman representing the spirit guardian of the site and the Goddess who speaks through her sits in the chair-like cove in the southern face of the sarsen stone. Meanwhile, those following the God party process around the outer bank of the henge to the southern entrance, where they are challenged as to their intent and give offerings (often of flowers, fruit, bread or mead) to the Goddess's representative.


title: Avebury

text: Due to the fact that various Pagan, and in particular Druid groups, perform their ceremonies at the site, a rota has been established, whereby the Loyal Arthurian Warband (LAW), the Secular Order of Druids (SOD) and the Glastonbury Order of Druids (GOD) use it on Saturdays, whilst the Druid Network and the British Druid Order (BDO) instead plan their events for Sundays.


title: Avebury

text: Alongside its usage as a sacred site amongst Pagans, the prehistoric monument has become a popular attraction for those holding New Age beliefs, with some visitors using dowsing rods around the site in the belief that they might be able to detect psychic emanations.


title: Avebury

text: The question of access to the site at certain times of the year has been controversial and the National Trust, who steward and protect the site, have held discussions with a number of groups. The National Trust have discouraged commercialism around the site, preventing many souvenir shops from opening up in an attempt to keep the area free from the "customary gaudiness that infiltrates most famous places" in the United Kingdom. Two shops have been opened in the village catering to the tourist market, one of which is the National Trust's own shop. The other, known as The Henge Shop, focuses on selling New Age paraphernalia and books.


title: Avebury

text: A possible fictionalised version of Avebury, known as "Wansbury Ring", is featured in Mary Rayner's 1975 novel "The Witch-Finder". However the name is closer to that of the prehistoric hill-fort of Wandlebury Ring near Cambridge.


title: Avebury

text: "Children of the Stones", 1977 children's television drama serial, was filmed at Avebury and takes place in a fictionalized version of Avebury called "Milbury". The Barber-surgeon death (see above) is included in the story.


title: Avebury

text: On 1 April 2014, as part of an April Fool's Day prank, the National Trust claimed through social media and a press release that their rangers were moving one of the stones in order to realign the circle with British Summer Time. The story was picked up by local media and "The Guardian"s "Best of the Web".


title: Avebury

text: About 480 people live in 235 homes in the village of Avebury and its associated settlement of Avebury Trusloe, and in the nearby hamlets of Beckhampton and West Kennett.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Maple syrup urine disease (MSUD) is an autosomal recessive metabolic disorder affecting branched-chain amino acids. It is one type of organic acidemia. The condition gets its name from the distinctive sweet odor of affected infants' urine and earwax, particularly prior to diagnosis and during times of acute illness.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: The disease is named for the presence of sweet-smelling urine, similar to maple syrup, when the person goes into metabolic crisis. The smell is also detected in ear wax of an affected individual during metabolic crisis. In populations to whom maple syrup is unfamiliar, the aroma can be likened to fenugreek, and fenugreek ingestion may impart the aroma to urine.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Symptoms of MSUD varies between patients and is greatly related to the amount of residual enzyme activity.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Infants with classic MSUD will display subtle symptoms within the first 24–48 hours. Subtle symptoms include poor feeding, either bottle or breast, lethargy, and irritability. The infant will then experience increased focal neurologic signs. These neurologic signs include athetoid, hypertonia, spasticity, and opisthotonus that lead to convulsions and coma. If MSUD is left untreated, central neurologic function and respiratory failure will occur and lead to death. Although MSUD can be stabilized, there are still threats of metabolic decompensation and loss of bone mass that can lead to osteoporosis, pancreatitis, and intracranial hypertension. Additional signs and symptoms that can be associated with classic MSUD include intellectual limitation and behavioral issues.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Intermediate MSUD has greater levels of residual enzyme activity than classic MSUD. The majority of children with intermediate MSUD are diagnosed between the ages of 5 months and 7 years. Symptoms associated with classic MSUD also appear in intermediate MSUD.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Contrary to classic and intermediate MSUD, intermittent MSUD individuals will have normal growth and intellectual development. Symptoms of lethargy and characterized odor of maple syrup will occur when the individual experiences stress, does not eat, or develops an infection. Metabolic crisis leading to seizures, coma, and brain damage is still a possibility.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Symptoms associated with thiamine-response MSUD are similar to intermediate MSUD. Newborns rarely present with symptoms.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: The symptoms of MSUD may also present later depending on the severity of the disease. Untreated in older individuals, and during times of metabolic crisis, symptoms of the condition include uncharacteristically inappropriate, extreme or erratic behaviour and moods, hallucinations, lack of appetite, weight loss, anemia, diarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, lethargy, oscillating hypertonia and hypotonia, ataxia, seizures, hypoglycaemia, ketoacidosis, opisthotonus, pancreatitis, rapid neurological decline, and coma. Death from cerebral edema will likely occur if there is no treatment. Additionally, MSUD patients experience an abnormal course of diseases in simple infections that can lead to permanent damage.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: These four genes produce proteins that work together as the branched-chain alpha-keto acid dehydrogenase complex. The complex is essential for breaking down the amino acids leucine, isoleucine, and valine. These are present in some quantity in almost all kinds of food, but in particular, protein-rich foods such as dairy products, meat, fish, soy, gluten, eggs, nuts, whole grains, seeds, avocados, algae, edible seaweed, beans, and pulses. Mutation in any of these genes reduces or eliminates the function of the enzyme complex, preventing the normal breakdown of isoleucine, leucine, and valine. As a result, these amino acids and their by-products build up in the body. Because high levels of these substances are toxic to the brain and other organs, this accumulation leads to the serious medical problems associated with maple syrup urine disease.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: This condition has an autosomal recessive inheritance pattern, which means the defective gene is located on an autosome, and two copies of the gene – one from each parent – must be inherited to be affected by the disorder. The parents of a child with an autosomal recessive disorder are carriers of one copy of the defective gene, but are usually not affected by the disorder.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: MSUD is a metabolic disorder caused by a deficiency of the branched-chain alpha-keto acid dehydrogenase complex (BCKAD), leading to a buildup of the branched-chain amino acids (leucine, isoleucine, and valine) and their toxic by-products (ketoacids) in the blood and urine. The buildup of these BCAAS will lead to the maple syrup odor that is associated with MSUD. The BCKAD complex begins by breaking down leucine, isoleucine, and valine through the use of branch-chain aminotransferase into their relevant α-ketoacids. The second step involves the conversion of α-ketoacids into acetoacetate, acetyl-CoA, and succinyl-CoA through oxidative decarboxylation of α-ketoacids. The BCKAD complex consists of four subunits designated Eα, Eβ, E, and E. The E subunit is also a component of pyruvate dehydrogenase complex and oxoglutarate dehydrogenase complex. MSUD can result from mutations in any of the genes that code for these enzyme subunits, Eα, Eβ, E, and E. Mutations of these enzyme subunits will lead to the BCKAD complex unable to break down leucine, isoleucine, and valine. The levels of these branched chain amino acids will become elevated and lead to the symptoms associated with MSUD. Glutamate levels are maintained in the brain by BCAA metabolism functions and if not properly maintained can lead to neurological problems that are seen in MSUD individuals. High levels of leucine has also been shown to affect water homeostasis within subcortical gray matter leading to cerebral edema, which occurs in MSUD patients if left untreated.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Prior to the easy availability of plasma amino acid measurement, diagnosis was commonly made based on suggestive symptoms and odor. Affected individuals are now often identified with characteristic elevations on plasma amino acids which do not have the characteristic odor. The compound responsible for the odor is sotolon (sometimes spelled sotolone).


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: On 9 May 2014, the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) announced its recommendation to screen every newborn baby in the UK for four further genetic disorders as part of its NHS Newborn Blood Spot Screening programme, including maple syrup urine disease. The disease is estimated to affect 1 out of 185,000 infants worldwide and its frequency increases with certain heritages.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Newborn screening for maple syrup urine disease involves analyzing the blood of 1–2 day-old newborns through tandem mass spectrometry. The blood concentration of leucine and isoleucine is measured relative to other amino acids to determine if the newborn has a high level of branched-chain amino acids. Once the newborn is 2–3 days old the blood concentration of branched-chain amino acids like leucine is greater than 1000 μmol/L and alternative screening methods are used. Instead, the newborn's urine is analyzed for levels of branched-chain alpha-hydroxyacids and alpha-ketoacids.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: The amount and type of enzyme activity in an affected individual with MSUD will determine which classification the affected individual will identify with:


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Maple syrup urine disease can be classified by its pattern of signs and symptoms, or by its genetic cause. The most common and severe form of this disease is the classic type, which appears soon after birth, and as long as it remains untreated, gives rise to progressive and unremitting symptoms. Variant forms of the disorder may become apparent only later in infancy or childhood, with typically less severe symptoms that may only appear during times of fasting, stress or illness, but still involve mental and physical problems if left untreated.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Generally, majority of patients will be classified into one of these four categories but some patients affected by MSUD do not fit the criteria for the listed sub-divisions and will be deemed unclassified MSUD.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: There are no methods for preventing the manifestation of the pathology of MSUD in infants with two defective copies of the BCKD gene. However, genetic counselors may consult with couples to screen for the disease via DNA testing. DNA testing is also available to identify the disease in an unborn child in the womb.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Keeping MSUD under control requires careful monitoring of blood chemistry, both at home and in a hospital setting. DNPH or specialised dipsticks may be used to test the patient's urine for ketones (a sign of metabolic decompensation), when metabolic stress is likely or suspected. Fingerstick tests are performed regularly and sent to a laboratory to determine blood levels of leucine, isoleucine, and valine. Regular metabolic consultations, including blood-draws for full nutritional analysis, are recommended; especially during puberty and periods of rapid growth. MSUD management also involves a specially tailored metabolic formula, a modified diet, and lifestyle precautions such as avoiding fatigue and infections, as well as consuming regular, sufficient calories in proportion to physical stress and exertion. Without sufficient calories, catabolism of muscle protein will result in metabolic crisis. Those with MSUD must be hospitalised for intravenous infusion of sugars and nasogastric drip-feeding of formula, in the event of metabolic decompensation, or lack of appetite, diarrhea or vomiting. Food avoidance, rejection of formula and picky eating are all common problems with MSUD. Some patients may need to receive all or part of their daily nutrition through a feeding tube.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Following diagnosis, rapid removal of excess leucine from the body reduces the impact of the disease on development. Exchange transfusion, hemodialysis, or hemofiltration may be used.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: A diet with carefully controlled levels of the amino acids leucine, isoleucine, and valine must be maintained at all times in order to prevent neurological damage. Since these three amino acids occur in all natural protein, and most natural foods contain some protein, any food intake must be closely monitored, and day-to-day protein intake calculated on a cumulative basis, to ensure individual tolerance levels are not exceeded at any time. As the MSUD diet is so protein-restricted, and adequate protein is a requirement for all humans, tailored metabolic formula containing all the other essential amino acids, as well as any vitamins, minerals, omega-3 fatty acids and trace elements (which may be lacking due to the limited range of permissible foods), are an essential aspect of MSUD management. These complement the MSUD patient's natural food intake to meet normal nutritional requirements without causing harm. If adequate calories cannot be obtained from natural food without exceeding protein tolerance, specialised low protein products such as starch-based baking mixtures, imitation rice and pasta may be prescribed, often alongside a protein-free carbohydrate powder added to food and/or drink, and increased at times of metabolic stress. MSUD patients with thiamine- responsive MSUD can have a higher protein intake diet with administration of high doses of thiamine, a cofactor of the enzyme that causes the condition. The typical dosage amount of thiamine-responsive MSUD depends on the enzyme activity present and can range from 10 mg - 100 mg daily.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Usually MSUD patients are monitored by a dietitian. Liver transplantation is a treatment option that can completely and permanently normalise metabolic function, enabling discontinuation of nutritional supplements and strict monitoring of biochemistry and caloric intake, relaxation of MSUD-related lifestyle precautions, and an unrestricted diet. This procedure is most successful when performed at a young age, and weaning from immunosuppressants may even be possible in the long run. However, the surgery is a major undertaking requiring extensive hospitalisation and rigorous adherence to a tapering regimen of medications. Following transplant, the risk of periodic rejection will always exist, as will the need for some degree of lifelong monitoring in this respect. Despite normalising clinical presentation, liver transplantation is not considered a cure for MSUD. The patient will still carry two copies of the mutated BKAD gene in each of their own cells, which will consequently still be unable to produce the missing enzyme. They will also still pass one mutated copy of the gene on to each of their biological children. As a major surgery the transplant procedure itself also carries standard risks, although the odds of its success are greatly elevated when the only indication for it is an inborn error of metabolism. In absence of a liver transplant, the MSUD diet must be adhered to strictly and permanently. However, in both treatment scenarios, with proper management, those affected are able to live healthy, normal lives without experiencing the severe neurological damage associated with the disease.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Control of metabolism is vital during pregnancy of women with MSUD. To prevent detrimental abnormalities in development of the embryo or fetus, dietary adjustments should be made and plasma amino acid concentrations of the mother should be observed carefully and frequently. Amino acid deficiency can be detected through fetal growth, making it essential to monitor development closely.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: If left untreated, MSUD will lead to death due to central neurological function failure and respiratory failure. Early detection, diet low in branched-chain amino acids, and close monitoring of blood chemistry can lead to a good prognosis with little or no abnormal developments. Average intellectual development is below that of the general population and the severity of the deficit is a related to the time the condition remained undiagnosed and the effectiveness of dietary control including during metabolic crises.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Maple syrup urine disease (MSUD) is a rare, inherited metabolic disorder. Its prevalence in the United States population is approximately 1 newborn out of 180,000 live births. However, in populations where there is a higher frequency of consanguinity, such as the Mennonites in Pennsylvania or the Amish, the frequency of MSUD is significantly higher at 1 newborn out of 176 live births. In Austria, 1 newborn out of 250,000 live births inherits MSUD. It also is believed to have a higher prevalence in certain populations due in part to the founder effect since MSUD has a much higher prevalence in children of Amish, Mennonite, and Jewish descent.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Gene therapy to overcome the genetic mutations that cause MSUD have already been proven safe in animals studies with MSUD. The gene therapy involves a healthy copy of the gene causing MSUD is produced and inserted into a viral vector. The adeno-associated virus vector is delivered one-time to the patient intravenously. Hepatocytes will take up vector and functional copies of the affected gene is MSUD patients will be expressed. This will allow BCAA to be broken down properly and prevent toxic build up.


title: Maple syrup urine disease

text: Sodium phenylacetate/benzoate or sodium phenylbutyrate has been shown to reduce BCAA in a clinical trial done February 2011. Phenylbutyrate treatment reduced the blood concentration of BCAA and their corresponding BCKA in certain groups of MSUD patients and may be a possible adjunctive treatment.


title: Snatch Game

text: Snatch Game is a challenge on the "Drag Race" reality competition television franchise. Beginning with the second season of the original American series "RuPaul's Drag Race", the challenge has taken place on every season since. It has also occurred on "RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars" since season 2, both seasons of "RuPaul's Secret Celebrity Drag Race", and on the Thai, British, Canadian, Dutch, Australian-New Zealand, Spanish, Italian, French, and Filipino international installments. The Snatch Game typically parodies the game show "Match Game" (known as "Blankety Blank" in the UK and "Blankety Blanks" in Australia) and is a test of the contestants' skills at celebrity impersonation and improvisational comedy.


title: Snatch Game

text: Usually occurring about halfway through each "Drag Race" season, Snatch Game is commonly perceived as one of the most important and memorable challenges of the show and, in RuPaul's own words, separates "the basic bitches from the fierce-ass queens." Winners of the show are often amongst the top performers in the Snatch Game, though there are a few exceptions.


title: Snatch Game

text: Because they are drag queens, the show's contestants typically impersonate women, although there have been several instances of contestants choosing male celebrities whose public images were sufficiently flamboyant to fit in with a drag aesthetic. Several contestants have chosen to impersonate other people directly associated with the show, such as other past or present contestants, Michelle Visage, or RuPaul. Queens cannot choose copyrighted characters, although some have ostensibly impersonated actors while actually basing their portrayal on one of the celebrity's film or television performances.


title: Snatch Game

text: The challenge often brings in celebrity guests who serve as answer providers and sometimes, but not always, also serve as the guest judges of the episode. However, some seasons have also used members of the show's regular judging panel, such as Michelle Visage, Ross Mathews, Carson Kressley or Rhys Nicholson, in lieu of outside guests.


title: Snatch Game

text: Five queens have won the Snatch Game more than once: BenDeLaCreme, Ginger Minj, Baga Chipz, Jinkx Monsoon, and Trinity the Tuck. One queen, Gia Gunn, has been eliminated more than once for her Snatch Game performances.


title: Snatch Game

text: Eartha Kitt and Cardi B are the most frequently impersonated celebrities. Both queens who impersonated Mariah Carey were eliminated, making her the only choice of impersonation subject to lead to multiple contestants' eliminations. Both of the queens to impersonate Ariana Grande, Celine Dion, Ellen DeGeneres, Nancy Grace, and Rue McClanahan, respectively, two of the three queens to impersonate Lady Gaga, and two of the four queens to impersonate Cardi B were up for elimination due to their performances, but only one queen was eliminated for each. Two of the four queens to impersonate Eartha Kitt, and two of the three queens to impersonate Cher and RuPaul, respectively, landed in the bottom, but none of them were eliminated. Two of the three queens to impersonate Liza Minnelli won the Snatch Game, making her the only impersonation subject to earn multiple queens a win.


title: Snatch Game

text: The "Snatch Game" challenge has been called the signature challenge on the show. Kevin O'Keeffe from "Into" discusses that the challenge isn't only about the celebrity impersonation and RuPaul looks for accuracy, humor and the idea of the character. He also states that the challenge tests a lot of different skills, such as the queens' ability to put on a different look from their signature one, and also their ability to be "funny on a dime". RuPaul states each year, as the challenge is introduced, that the cardinal rule of the challenge is to make him laugh.


title: Snatch Game

text: Writing for "Vulture", Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers state that "Snatch Game" is "the mother of all comedy challenges on a reality show" despite the varied results over the years. On a more critical reception of the challenge, Josh Lee, for "PopBuzz", argues that while the annual challenge has given viewers some of the best moments from "RuPaul's Drag Race", it is starting to feel stale overall. He comments that recent celebrity impersonations in the challenge have been lackluster and the show should adapt and retire "Snatch Game" in future seasons of the series.


title: Flensburg Government

text: The Flensburg Government (), also known as the Flensburg Cabinet ("Flensburger Kabinett"), the Dönitz Government ("Regierung Dönitz"), or the Schwerin von Krosigk Cabinet ("Kabinett Schwerin von Krosigk"), was the short-lived government of Nazi Germany during a period of three weeks around the end of World War II in Europe. The government was formed following the suicide of Adolf Hitler on 30 April 1945 during the Battle of Berlin. It was headed by Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz as the Reichspräsident and Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk as the Leading Minister. The administration was referred to as the "Flensburg Government" because Dönitz's headquarters had been relocated to Flensburg in northern Germany on 3 May 1945.


title: Flensburg Government

text: At the time of its formation, forces loyal to the Nazi regime still held control of most of Austria and the Sudetenland, which had been annexed by Germany in 1938. In addition, the German military continued to occupy considerable non-German-speaking territories in disparate locations across Europe. However, in addition to losing most of its wartime conquests by this point, German forces had already been driven out of the vast majority of Germany's post-Anschluss territory, in addition to Luxembourg as well as the Polish and French territories Germany had either annexed or placed under direct German administration in the early stages of the war.


title: Flensburg Government

text: Therefore, due to the rapid Allied advance, the Flensburg government's nominal civil jurisdiction at its formation was essentially limited to those parts of Austria and the Sudetenland its forces still controlled as well as a narrow wedge of German territory running from the pre-1938 Austrian and Czechoslovak borders through Berlin to the Danish border. Since 25 April 1945, these lands had been cut in two by the American advance to join with Soviet forces at Torgau on the Elbe. Following the capitulation of all German armed forces on 8 May, Nazi Germany de facto ended when all civilian central authority and power within Germany had already been extinguished de facto at the death of Führer Adolf Hitler and the Allied Governments also did not recognize the next Nazi government. The western Allies allowed the Flensburg government to continue to meet and conduct what business it could until 23 May when British troops arrested its members as prisoners of war, effectively dissolving the government; the dissolution being formalised by the four Allied Powers on 5 June 1945.


title: Flensburg Government

text: Once it became apparent that Hitler intended to stay and die in the besieged city of Berlin, effective overall command of German armed forces was exercised through the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW), the German Military High Command, which had relocated to Rheinsburg. Anticipating that German-held territory would be split, separate military and civilian commands had provisionally been established on 15 April; under Field Marshal Albert Kesselring at Pullach for forces in the south and west, and under Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz at Plön for forces in the north and east; but then Hitler had stalled on transferring executive military authority to them.


title: Flensburg Government

text: On 27 April Wilhelm Keitel and Alfred Jodl, of the Army High Command, met at Rheinsburg with Dönitz and Heinrich Himmler to discuss the war situation now that the fall of Berlin could not be averted. Himmler took the chair as the acknowledged deputy Führer; and, since the disgrace and dismissal of Hermann Göring, Hitler's expected successor. As they were leaving Rheinsberg on 28 April, Himmler asked Dönitz to confirm that he would be willing to serve in a successor government that Himmler might form. That day however, the British and Americans published Himmler's secret proposals for a separate peace in the West (which they had rejected), to which Hitler reacted by dismissing Himmler from all posts and ordering his arrest for treason. Telegrams sent by Martin Bormann on 29 and 30 April, informed Dönitz of these developments and of Dönitz's own appointment as Hitler's successor.


title: Flensburg Government

text: With both Göring and Himmler removed from the succession, Hitler in his political testament had named Grand Admiral Dönitz his successor as President and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and designated Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels head of government as Chancellor. Goebbels committed suicide in the Berlin "Führerbunker" on 1 May. The same day Dönitz accepted the offices of Supreme Commander and Head of State in separate broadcast addresses to the German armed forces and to the German people. Residual ministers of the Hitler cabinet, who had fled from the fall of Berlin to join Dönitz at the Wehrmacht barracks near Plön in Holstein, resigned the next day. Suspecting that Bormann might also have escaped from Berlin and be intending to seize power, Dönitz met with Hitler's former Finance Minister Lutz Graf Schwerin von Krosigk and asked him to constitute a new Reich government.


title: Flensburg Government

text: Schwerin von Krosigk's cabinet first met in Eutin, to which he and his ministerial staff had been evacuated, on 2 May. Later on 2 May, and in view of the rapidly advancing British Second Army forces which were approaching Lübeck, Dönitz met Schwerin von Krosigk, Paul Wegener, Himmler, and Keitel to discuss the urgent necessity of a further relocation. Himmler argued for a move to Prague, then the last major central European capital city in German hands, and closer to advancing American forces with whom he hoped to negotiate personally, but Dönitz refused to sanction any move outside the borders of Germany. Moreover, the political situation of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was highly unstable. Dönitz decided instead to proceed to the Mürwik naval academy in Flensburg near the Danish border. The cabinet met in the sports school of the naval academy; while administrative offices and accommodation for the various ministries were established on the liner , moored in Flensburg harbour. The German High Command, which had moved from Rheinsburg to Neustadt in Holstein two days before, then also relocated to Flensburg, while the SS leadership had been gathering at Flensburg since 28 April.


title: Flensburg Government

text: Three ministries were abolished outright (Air Ministry, Occupied Eastern Territories and Public Enlightenment and Propaganda). While retaining some members from the previous Hitler cabinet and Goebbels cabinet, Dönitz dismissed three ministers (Bernhard Rust, Alfred Rosenberg and Otto Georg Thierack). Other former ministers, such as Walther Funk (Economics) and Wilhelm Ohnesorge (Postal Affairs) also found themselves without new positions. The new government consisted of the following people:


title: Flensburg Government

text: Dönitz avoided including prominent Nazi leaders in his cabinet other than Speer, but included several serving officers in the SS and others who had been closely involved in formulating and prosecuting the genocidal policies of the former regime. Herbert Backe had been the author of the Hunger Plan of 1941, a deliberate strategy for mass elimination by starvation of Soviet prisoners of war and 'surplus' Soviet urban populations. Speer's deputy in the Economics and Production Ministry was Otto Ohlendorf, who had personally directed the murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews and Communists in occupied Soviet territory. Wilhelm Stuckart had been a participant at the Wannsee Conference of January 1942, when the administrative responsibilities for the "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem" had been agreed. Otto Ohlendorf had transferred across directly from directing Himmler's office as Reichsführer-SS; and overall, of 350 staff working in the offices of the Flensburg government, 230 had been members of the SS or other security services. Dönitz's cabinet picks were clearly circumscribed by who was available. Otherwise, and in spite of his subsequent claim that his government was 'unpolitical', the most consistent characteristic of those chosen was a virulent opposition to Bolshevism, and a determination to ensure that the revolutionary events in Germany attending the Armistice of 1918 would not be repeated in 1945. As Dönitz did not then intend any surrender to the Soviets or Poles and continued to identify "Jews and profiteers" as enemies of the German people, he had little compunction over including in his cabinet men with blood on their hands, so long as that blood was Russian, Eastern European or Jewish.


title: Flensburg Government

text: For the first few days the post of Minister of the Interior was kept vacant. This had been the office of Himmler, but Himmler had been condemned as a traitor, dismissed from all functions and ordered to be arrested in Hitler's Last Testament. Dönitz did not want Himmler's name associated with his new government. However, Dönitz feared that any move against Himmler would alienate the SS, a force that was personally loyal to its commanding officer. Following Hitler's suicide, the SS remained armed, powerful and skeptical of the Führer's allegations against Himmler. Dönitz tacitly set Hitler's instructions aside and continued to see Himmler on a daily basis without according him any formal appointment. It was only on 6 May 1945, while final negotiations were in prospect for a capitulation to U.S. General Dwight D. Eisenhower in the west, that Dönitz dismissed Himmler from all his posts, and appointed Stuckart in his place.


title: Flensburg Government

text: Dönitz had hoped to be able to appoint Field Marshal Erich von Manstein as Commander in Chief of the Army and Chief of the OKW, to which the Army High Command (Oberkommando des Heeres) had been subject since 28 April 1945, but he could not be contacted on 2 May, and so Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel was kept in the post; and in this capacity Keitel signed the act of surrender for the German High Command in Berlin on 8 May. A further factor favouring the continuation of Keitel as Commander in Chief was the support for him of Colonel General Alfred Jodl, the Chief of Operations Staff of the "Wehrmacht", whose retention Dönitz recognised as essential. Jodl was to represent Dönitz in negotiations with the Allies in Reims, France. Admiral Hans-Georg von Friedeburg was appointed to succeed Dönitz as Commander of the Kriegsmarine and was promoted by Dönitz to the rank of "Generaladmiral" on 1 May. The Air Force had largely been destroyed or grounded due to lack of fuel, so no new appointment was made. Field Marshal Robert Ritter von Greim remained as Commander of the Luftwaffe.


title: Flensburg Government

text: In spite of its repeated relocations, the Armed Forces High Command continued to function, its organisation and structures having been maintained. But the same was not true of any other arm of government. Starting in March 1945, the staff of the various ministries had been evacuated to resort hotels in the Bavarian and Austrian Alps – chiefly in the region of Berchtesgaden, leaving only the ministers themselves in Berlin. On 13 April, the remaining foreign embassies and the diplomatic corps were evacuated to Bad Gastein. Finally on 20 April all the ministers and their personal staffs had been ordered to make their way southwards; but as by then the roads had been cut and there were insufficient transport aircraft available, several ministers (like Schwerin von Krosigk) had perforce headed north instead. Thus the government of Germany was, at the death of Hitler, split over six centres. The Propaganda Ministry, the personal fiefdom of Joseph Goebbels, had remained with him in Berlin, as had the Nazi Party Chancellery under Martin Bormann; while the Luftwaffe High Command had relocated to Berchtesgaden, having been until his abrupt dismissal on 23 April the counterpart fiefdom of Göring. Himmler had retained his personal powerbase in the offices of the SS and security apparatus, which had been established in Lübeck in the north and then relocated to Flensburg. Other government ministries and ministers were then variously located at Berchtesgaden and Dönitz's headquarters in Plön. With the Armed Forces High Command also located in the north – although many OKW personnel had gone south – there was, in consequence, no semblance any longer of a German central government, and most of the members of the cabinet lacked any support staff from their nominal ministries.


title: Flensburg Government

text: Dönitz's initial priority was to open communication with the commanders of German armies, and to establish with them their acknowledgement of his new authority as sole Supreme Commander of all German armed forces. He also sought their agreement with his overall policy of negotiating successive partial surrenders with the Western Allies, while maintaining the war against Soviet forces in the east. Key to this was sidelining Himmler, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Alfred Rosenberg and other former Nazi grandees who had fled to Flensburg, but whose continued participation in government would preclude any negotiation with the western Allies. Dönitz's intentions in this were, if possible, to split the Allies, and to offer German military units as components of a common anti-Bolshevik front. Failing that, he sought to save as many German soldiers as possible from Soviet captivity by ordering units in the east to retreat westwards and surrender to the British, Canadians or Americans and by redoubling Operation Hannibal, the maritime evacuation of units trapped on the Baltic coast. At Dönitz's urging, Keitel and Jodl attempted to direct what was left of the Wehrmacht towards these goals. On 2 May, Dönitz obtained pledges of allegiance from the commanders of German armies in Norway, Courland, East Prussia, and Bohemia; these pledges were made to him personally as Supreme Commander, and not as Head of State in a forthcoming government.


title: Flensburg Government

text: Otherwise, however, Dönitz's policies chiefly demonstrated continuity with the previous regime: the Nazi party was neither banned nor dissolved; Dönitz kept a bust of Hitler in his office; and the uniforms, insignia and protocol of Nazi Germany were maintained, initially including even the 'Heil Hitler' greeting. Following a plea from Speer, on 2 May Dönitz rescinded the infamous 'Nero Decree' ordering scorched earth destruction of German infrastructure and industrial plants; but it was not until 6 May that counterpart destruction orders were rescinded for those territories remaining under German occupation, such as Norway. Moreover, neither summary courts for civil punishment, nor military discipline by summary courts martial were abolished, with military executions for insulting the memory of Hitler being confirmed even after the final capitulation on 8 May.


title: Flensburg Government

text: While the presence of SS leaders and their staffs in Flensburg had provided Dönitz with a source of personnel to support his government, otherwise they presented problems. In particular, the SS leadership had access to armed forces that were not under Dönitz's control, and remained firmly loyal to Himmler, whom Dönitz had surmised was personally unacceptable now to both the Western Allies and to the Wehrmacht. Dönitz handled the issue by stringing Himmler along for as long as he could with vague prospects of a possible function in the government. Once serious negotiations were underway for surrender to Eisenhower, Himmler and the SS apparatus had to be got out of the way. On 5 May 1945 Dönitz informed Himmler of his forthcoming dismissal, promising false papers and identities for him and his leading lieutenants if they removed themselves promptly. Himmler called his fellow SS leaders together for a last time that day, and advised them to 'dive down within the Wehrmacht'. By the next day they had fled.


title: Flensburg Government

text: This came too late for the concentration camp prisoners within the area who were now within Dönitz's nominal authority, while under the actual control of the SS. These had numbered around 10,000 when Dönitz assumed the presidency; mainly former inmates of the Neuengamme camp outside Hamburg, which had been shut down in preparation for the surrender of the city to the British. Between 16 and 28 April, the prisoners had been moved eastwards and concealed by the SS in a flotilla of unseaworthy ships anchored in the Bay of Lübeck, where they then remained without food or medical attention. At the time, this action had been opposed by Rear Admiral Konrad Englehardt on Dönitz's staff, but when the Flensburg government came into being, Dönitz made no attempt to free the prisoners, and his government avoided any subsequent acknowledgement that they had known they were there. On 3 May 1945, the prison flotilla was sunk by the Royal Air Force in the mistaken belief that the ships were being prepared to evacuate leading SS personnel. Over 7,000 prisoners drowned, mainly on the former liner "Cap Arcona".


title: Flensburg Government

text: On 2 May, while still at Plön, Dönitz was surprised to learn that German forces in Italy had surrendered unconditionally to the Western Allies. The capitulation had been negotiated without Hitler's knowledge or consent, and signed at Caserta on 29 April, but it did not come into effect for three days. While Hitler had been still alive, Dönitz had followed absolutely his commands to fight on to the last on all fronts. However, he now realized that the Wehrmacht's position in the West was untenable. He believed that surrendering German forces only to the Western Allies could present opportunities to split the British and Americans from the Soviets. Thereon he assumed direction of further German surrender initiatives, exploring opportunities for partial surrender in the West. In the East, however, he continued to order German armies to fight on. On 2 May, he tried unsuccessfully to countermand the decisions of the German commander in Berlin to surrender their forces to the Soviets; and on 3 May, issued orders to the besieged defenders of Courland and Breslau to maintain their resistance.


title: Flensburg Government

text: On 3 May Dönitz sent Admiral Hans-Georg von Friedeburg, his successor as naval commander in chief, to the headquarters of British Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery at Lüneburg, with an offer to surrender the German forces in northwest Germany, together with the remaining elements of Army Group Vistula. Montgomery informed von Friedeburg that he could not accept the surrender of forces fighting on the Eastern Front and that consequently Army Group Vistula would have to surrender to the Soviets, although British forces would accept the surrender of any German soldiers fleeing westwards. He proposed instead, following discussions between Eisenhower and the British government, that he would accept the surrender of all German military forces in Northwestern Germany, Schleswig-Holstein, the Netherlands and Denmark, including naval forces and warships in those areas. Friedeburg asked for 48 hours to consider this; Montgomery allowed him 24. The proposed inclusion of Denmark, and the German warships operating there, initially alarmed Dönitz, who wished at all costs to maintain Operation Hannibal, evacuating German troops across the Baltic to Danish ports; but on consideration, he reckoned he might secretly evade the obligation to surrender these ships if they were at sea on the date the surrender came into effect. Furthermore, as it was unlikely that Montgomery would promptly be able to deploy British forces to the Danish islands under German occupation, especially Bornholm in the central Baltic, there was every possibility that the evacuation proceeding there could continue in total disregard of the agreed surrender terms. Consequently, authorized by Dönitz, von Friedeburg returned on 4 May and signed an instrument of surrender for all German troops and ships in the Netherlands, Denmark and Northwestern Germany. This was accepted by Montgomery on behalf of Eisenhower. This 4 May surrender would become effective at 8:00 am on 5 May; so Dönitz ordered all ships involved in Operation Hannibal to undertake a covert final evacuation voyage, while also unilaterally ordering all U-boat actions to cease. One crew in the evacuation fleet refused to set sail; so Dönitz ordered the ringleaders to be arrested for mutiny, tried by summary court martial and shot.


title: Flensburg Government

text: Also, on 5 May 1945, all German forces in Bavaria and South West Germany signed an act of surrender to the Americans at Haar, outside Munich, coming into effect on 6 May. Montgomery, always seeking to boost his own public standing at the expense of other Allied commanders, had arranged extensive media coverage of the 4 May signing. Montgomery had supplied von Friedeburg with a prepared German text of the surrender documents, however, because both this and the English text had explicitly stated that only the English version was to be considered authentic, Montgomery apparently deemed it unnecessary to issue the German text to the press. Dönitz and Krosigk quickly realised this oversight and promptly broadcast their own, doctored, German version which differed significantly from that signed - specifically, the warships in the Baltic were not included nor was the territory in Schleswig around Flensburg itself; and especially, the surrender was described as a 'truce', not a capitulation. As was Dönitz's intention, this broadcast exacerbated Stalin's suspicions of the partial capitulations, especially as the greater parts of the 3rd Panzer Army and 21st Army had indeed been able to surrender to the British and Americans, rather than the Soviets. Realising this, Eisenhower determined that no further partial capitulations would be negotiated.


title: Flensburg Government

text: The capitulations at Luneberg and Haar could do nothing, however, for the bulk of the German forces in Army Group Centre, fighting the Soviets in Bohemia and Saxony. On 4 May Dönitz, together with Karl Frank the Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, conceived of a device whereby Army Group Centre might be able to surrender to General George Patton's American forces, who had been entering the Sudetenland areas of former Czechoslovakia from the west, and approaching Pilsen. Dönitz proposed that Frank should dissolve the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and resign in favour of a puppet Czech government, who would then declare Prague an open city and invite the Americans in. Patton's virulent anti-communist views were well known to the German leadership, who reckoned that with Patton in Prague it would become much easier for Army Group Centre to negotiate surrender terms with him while maintaining their resistance to the Soviets, if possible dragging American and Soviet armies into direct confrontation. Frank had hopes that "we can engineer a disagreement between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union even more serious than that of Poland". The ploy was proposed as being put into effect on 5 May, but was overtaken by the outbreak of the Prague uprising on that date; and over the succeeding three days, far from surrendering Prague as an open city, SS forces launched a savage response to the insurgents, with brutal reprisals against Czech civilians and widespread destruction in central Prague. Orders to fire-bomb the whole of the Old Town were only averted due to lack of fuel for Luftwaffe bombing units. Alerted to the German machinations through intercepted Ultra signals, Eisenhower ordered Patton to stand still in Pilsen in spite of ever more desperate calls for help from the insurgents. Prague was finally relieved by General Ivan Konev's forces on 9 May 1945.


title: Flensburg Government

text: Following the success of the two partial surrenders of 4 and 5 May, Dönitz instructed Friedeburg to go to the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) to negotiate with Eisenhower terms for a general surrender of all remaining German armies to the Western Allies. Since von Friedeburg's meeting with Montgomery, Eisenhower's opposition to accepting a German surrender that excluded the Soviet Union had been made clear to the German High Command, but Dönitz hoped to change his mind.


title: Flensburg Government

text: On the next day, 5 May, von Friedeburg arrived at General Eisenhower's headquarters at Reims, France, but learned that Eisenhower was resolute that only a total surrender on all fronts to all the Allies could be discussed. Jodl arrived a day later, ostensibly to sign such a general surrender. Dönitz had instructed him to draw out the negotiations for as long as possible so that German troops and refugees could move west to surrender to the Western Powers. Eisenhower made it clear that the Allies demanded immediate unconditional surrender on all fronts. When it became obvious that the Germans were stalling, Eisenhower threatened to close the western front to all surrendering Germans from the east. Had this happened, German soldiers attempting to cross the line to surrender would be fired on and all subsequent surrenders would have to be to the Soviets. When Dönitz learned this, he radioed Jodl full powers to sign the unconditional German Instrument of Surrender at 1.30 am on the morning of 7 May. Just over an hour later, Jodl signed the documents. The surrender documents included the phrase, "The German High Command will at once issue orders to all German military, naval and air authorities and to all forces under German control to cease active operations at 2301 hours Central European time on 8 May and to remain in the positions occupied at that time." The Western Allies had a unified command structure, and formed a single expeditionary force, the "Allied Expeditionary Force". U.S. Army General Walter Bedell Smith (Eisenhower's chief of staff at SHAEF) signed on behalf of the Western Allies, and General Ivan Susloparov (the Soviet liaison officer at SHAEF) signed on behalf of the Soviets. French Major General François Sevez signed as the official witness.


title: Flensburg Government

text: Although Eisenhower had sought to keep General Aleksei Antonov of the Soviet High Command fully informed of the progress of the surrender negotiations, no confirmation had been received from the Soviets that the text of the Act of Military Surrender was acceptable to them, or that Susloparov was empowered to sign it. Accordingly, Eisenhower extracted from Jodl an additional signed undertaking that the Chief of the OKW and the Commanders in Chief of all three German armed services would attend in person and sign a "formal ratification" of the Act of Military Surrender, at a place and date to be specified. Some six hours after the signing, a response came from Antonov that the terms of surrender were unacceptable and that Susloparov could not sign it. Eisenhower promptly agreed and undertook to attend together with the rest of the SHAEF for the definitive signing in Berlin two days later. Antonov's response also noted that von Friedeburg had been referring matters back to Dönitz over the radio; and that Dönitz, in direct breach of the signed surrender terms, had still not issued orders for German forces in the east to remain in their positions, but was instead instructing them to continue their resistance and flee westwards. Antonov stated that, while the internal discussions of the German military in no way obligated the Allied Powers, Jodl's signature could not be accepted as valid if he was signing as Dönitz's representative, since Dönitz himself was clearly acting in bad faith. He proposed that the definitive act of surrender should make it clear that the Commanders in Chief of each of the German armed services were, in signing it, surrendering their forces on the authority of the German High Command - and not as delegated by Dönitz or the purported Flensburg government.


title: Flensburg Government

text: A second, amended, instrument of surrender was accordingly signed at Karlshorst, Berlin, on 8 May shortly before midnight. Marshal Georgy Zhukov signed for the Soviet High Command, and the British Marshal of the Royal Air Force A. W. Tedder signed on behalf of the Western Allies (Tedder acted as Eisenhower's representative at the Berlin ceremony, and signed "on behalf of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force", in his capacity as Deputy Supreme Commander). French General Jean de Lattre de Tassigny and U.S. Army Air Forces General Carl Spaatz signed as the official witnesses. The Allies had demanded that representatives of the German Army, Navy and Air Force, and the High Command of the Armed Forces, sign the ratification of unconditional surrender, and that they should present full powers authorizing them to do so on behalf of the German High Command. Complying with that demand, Dönitz issued a telegraphed communication from his "Supreme Commander Headquarters" ("Der Oberste Befehlshaber Hauptquartier") granting the necessary full powers, and accordingly the second Act of Military Surrender was signed by Keitel as Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces and as acting Commander in Chief of the Army; by von Friedeburg as the Commander in Chief of the Kriegsmarine, by General Hans-Jürgen Stumpff as Deputy Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, as Field Marshal Robert Ritter von Greim, the Luftwaffe commander, had been injured. At the time specified, World War II in Europe ended. On 9 May, Dönitz issued orders to the German Armed Forces regarding the military surrender.


title: Flensburg Government

text: The text of the definitive surrender document signed in Berlin differed from that previously signed at Reims, chiefly in that, to the second article was added the words "..and to disarm completely, handing over their weapons and equipment to the local allied commanders or officers designated by the Representatives of the Allied Supreme Command"; which had the effect of requiring German troops facing Soviet forces to hand over their weapons, disband and give themselves up as prisoners. Otherwise neither the Reims nor Berlin surrender instruments provided explicitly for the surrender of the German State, because the draft surrender document prepared by the European Advisory Commission (EAC) was not used. Instead, a simplified, military-only version had been produced by the SHAEF, based largely on the wording of the partial surrender instrument of German forces in Italy that had been signed at Caserta. This definition of the surrender as an act of military capitulation side-stepped any Allied recognition of the German Government, or of Dönitz as Head of State. The question of the civil effects of the unconditional surrender was only settled later, when on 23 May the Allies decided to dissolve the Flensburg Government and on 5 June issued the Berlin declaration, proclaiming the direct assumption of the supreme governmental authority in Germany by the Allied Powers. The text of the Berlin Declaration was widely based on the EAC's draft instrument of surrender of Germany. The draft was reworked into a unilateral declaration with an extended explanatory preamble, that spelled out the Allied position that as a result of its complete defeat Germany had been left without a government, a vacuum that the direct assumption of supreme authority by the Allies would replace.


title: Flensburg Government

text: During 1944 and 1945 countries that had been neutral or allies of Germany had been joining the Allied Powers and declaring war on Germany. The German embassies to these countries had been closed down, and their property and archives held in trust by a nominated protecting power (usually Switzerland or Sweden) under the terms of the Geneva Conventions. There were counterpart arrangements for the former embassies of Allied countries in Berlin. The United States Department of State had prepared for the diplomatic consequences of the war ending on the assumption that there would have been an explicit statement of unconditional surrender of the German state in accordance with the terms of a draft surrender text jointly agreed by the Allied powers in 1944. In the final days of April 1945, the State Department had notified the protecting powers, and all other remaining neutral governments (such as Ireland), that following the forthcoming German surrender the continued identity of the German state would rest solely in the four Allied Powers. The Allied Powers would immediately recall all German diplomatic staff, take ownership of all German state property, extinguish all protecting power functions, and require the transfer of all archives and records to one or another of the embassies of the western Allies.


title: Flensburg Government

text: On 8 May 1945, these arrangements were put into effect in full, notwithstanding that the only German parties to the signed surrender document had been the German High Command. The western Allies maintained that a functioning German state had already ceased to exist, and that consequently the surrender of the German military had effected the complete termination of Nazi Germany. The protecting powers complied fully with the Allied demands: Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland announced the breaking off of relations; consequently the German state ceased as a diplomatic entity on 8 May 1945. The diplomatic staffs of neutral countries still in Germany were thus recalled, while those of countries at war with the Allies (most notably Japanese ambassador Hiroshi Ōshima and his legation) were taken prisoner by the Allies. The Empire of Japan, which after the German surrender was effectively the only remaining Axis belligerent, had already denounced the German surrender and the Flensburg government and seized the German embassy in Tokyo and seven U-boats.


title: Flensburg Government

text: Henceforward, although the Flensburg government had a nominated Minister for Foreign Affairs, it had no access to the diplomatic assets of the former German state and was not accorded diplomatic recognition by any of the former protecting powers, the other remaining neutral countries or any of its erstwhile allies in the Far East (i.e. the Japanese Empire and the puppet regimes still functioning under its control). On 5 May Schwerin von Krosigk had dispatched Walter Schellenberg to Sweden as a personal emissary via Folke Bernadotte, hoping to establish diplomatic relations and to expedite a partial surrender of German forces in Norway. This mission was overtaken by the general capitulation of all German forces, and following 8 May all further approaches from the Flensburg Government to Sweden were ignored.


title: Flensburg Government

text: Former armaments minister Albert Speer suggested that after the surrender the Flensburg government should dissolve itself. Instead Dönitz and his ministers chose to continue in hope of presiding over post-war Germany as a provisional government. Even though they could exercise no direct territorial authority, the cabinet still met daily at 10.00 a.m. Various papers on post-war reconstruction issues were proposed to be prepared, but the Western Allies showed no sign that they might receive them. Otherwise much time was devoted to discussion of how far the symbols, medals and insignia of the Hitler regime should be retained within the Flensburg headquarters.


title: Flensburg Government

text: Some acknowledgement of Nazi war crimes became unavoidable. The departure of the SS leadership from Flensburg opened the way for the Dönitz government to offer its own version of how the murder squads, concentration camps and killing facilities had come into being. Their response was that all these atrocities had been undertaken in secret, and entirely by Himmler and the SS. Dönitz and Jodl issued a joint public statement "that neither the German Wehrmacht nor the German people had knowledge of these things." While this statement was mostly untrue, the consequent myth of the "good Wehrmacht" as having been deceived and betrayed by the "evil SS" was to achieve wide currency for decades in post-war Germany.


title: Flensburg Government

text: While it had been agreed amongst the Allies that the Flensburg government should be accorded no official recognition, Winston Churchill proved reluctant to toe the line. In his speech announcing victory to the British people on 8 May, Churchill specified that the surrender had been authorised by "Grand Admiral Dönitz, the designated Head of the German State". Equally, following the unconditional surrender, Churchill was instrumental in urging that the Flensburg Government should not immediately be closed down, saying that he could see "great advantages in letting things slide for a while". Churchill's attitude in this was conditioned by his concern that Soviet forces might seek to establish themselves in Denmark; and he saw the temporary continuation of the Flensburg government in territory under British control as establishing a bargaining counter for the British in any negotiations regarding Soviet intentions in the western Baltic, while also facilitating the disbanding of German forces.


title: Flensburg Government

text: Conversely, Soviet statements consistently characterised the Flensburg government as an anti-Soviet clique, pursuing a truce in the west only to maintain resistance against Soviet forces in the east. On 20 May, the government of the USSR made it clear what it thought about the Flensburg Government. It attacked the Dönitz Administration, calling it the "Dönitz Gang" and harshly criticised any idea of allowing it to retain any power. "Pravda" said:


title: Flensburg Government

text: Eisenhower tended rather to agree with the Soviet position (if not the reasoning behind it), suspecting that Dönitz and his cabinet could be a front, while the real German leadership, perhaps including Himmler, Bormann and Hitler himself (whose remains were not then known to have been identified), remained operating behind the scenes, or otherwise plotting for their concealment and escape. With ill-disguised reluctance Eisenhower agreed to defer to the British view for a short period, but issued a clarifying statement that the continuation of the Dönitz government did not constitute his being recognised as a head of state "but only and temporarily under the instructions of the Allied Commanders to carry out duties concerning the feeding, disarming and medical care of the German Armed Forces."


title: Flensburg Government

text: On 12 May, American Major General Lowell W. Rooks and his British deputy, Brigadier E. J. Foord, arrived in Flensburg and established their quarters in the passenger ship "Patria", docked in Flensburg harbour, displacing the administrative offices of the Flensburg government that had been housed there. Their mission was to liaise with the Dönitz "acting government" (as it was then referred to by the SHAEF) and to impose the will of the victorious Allied Powers on the OKW. On 13 May, the British authorities arrested Keitel for war crimes. Dönitz appointed Jodl as his replacement. Although the liaison mission arranged meetings with members of the Flensburg government, these only confirmed that neither Dönitz nor his ministers had been able to establish any degree of civil authority. Churchill withdrew his protection once it became clear that the Soviet High Command would otherwise have to be represented in the liaison mission. On 21 May the SHAEF acceded to Soviet proposals that the Flensburg Government be dissolved and its members arrested as POWs. This was carried out on 23 May. On that day, a British officer went to Dönitz's headquarters and asked to speak to the members of the government. Dönitz, Friedeburg and Jodl were then taken aboard the "Patria", where Rooks informed them of the dissolution of the government; placing them under arrest, and ordered that they be stripped and searched for concealed phials of poison.


title: Flensburg Government

text: The communication regarding the dissolution of the acting government and the arrest of its members was made in a formal manner, around a table on "Patria"s deck: Dönitz, Jodl and Friedeburg sat on one side, with Rooks, British Navy Captain Mund and Soviet General Trusov on the other. Foord remained standing, next to Rooks and an official interpreter was also present at the proceedings, that were photographed. By the time Dönitz emerged from the ship, the town's main street was filled with British tanks and troops rounding up the Germans. Faced with the prospect of being strip-searched, von Friedeburg committed suicide, while Dönitz, Schwerin von Krosigk, Speer, Jodl and other members of the dissolved Flensburg Government were taken prisoner, under the responsibility of the RAF Regiment task force commanded by Squadron Leader Mark Hobden.


title: Flensburg Government

text: The prisoners were later handed over to the King's Shropshire Light Infantry. Some Flensburg Government POWs such as Albert Speer were subsequently moved to the British POW camp "Dustbin" in Castle Kransberg, while others, including Dönitz, were transferred to the American-led Camp Ashcan. Later, all Camp Ashcan prisoners were moved to Nuremberg to stand trial.


title: Flensburg Government

text: With the arrest of the Flensburg Government on 23 May 1945, the German High Command also ceased to exist, with no central authority having been kept in place to govern Germany even in a nominal capacity, or to assume responsibility for complying with the demands and instructions of the victorious nations. This power vacuum continued for almost two weeks until 5 June 1945, when the representatives of the four Allied Powers signed the "Declaration Regarding the Defeat of Germany and the Assumption of Supreme Authority by Allied Powers", also known as the "Berlin Declaration".


title: Flensburg Government

text: The declaration, issued in Berlin at 18:00 on 5 June 1945, and signed by Eisenhower on behalf of the United States, Montgomery on behalf of the United Kingdom, Zhukov on behalf of the Soviet Union and by de Tassigny on behalf of the Provisional Government of the French Republic, contained the following statement:


title: Flensburg Government

text: In effect, the declaration on 5 June 1945 gave legal recognition to the state of affairs that had existed for all practical purposes from 23 May at the latest, which was that Germany did not possess a native government. Consequentially, complete authority and sovereignty was thereafter assumed by the Allied Military Occupation Government. The contention of the Allied Powers that the German state ceased to exist as of 5 June 1945 was then generally accepted, but came subsequently to be challenged in legal and political debate. In any event, the Berlin Declaration recognized the continued existence of Germany as a national territory and thus implied the continued existence of a German nation inhabiting that territory.


title: Flensburg Government

text: During the initial stage of the occupation of Germany, supreme authority was discharged by the Four Powers jointly for all occupation zones via the Allied Control Council. Therefore, this council was the immediate successor of the Dönitz Administration in governing the German national territories. Pursuant to the Potsdam Agreement, after 2 August 1945 the Allied Control Council limited its jurisdiction to the pre-war German territory west of the Oder-Neisse Line (i.e. the lands corresponding to Germany's present-day borders) thus implementing the Four Powers' decision to place Germany's pre-war territory east of the Oder-Neisse Line under direct Polish and Soviet administration.


title: Stourbridge

text: Stourbridge is a market town in the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley in the West Midlands, England, situated on the River Stour. Historically in Worcestershire, it was the centre of British glass making during the Industrial Revolution. The 2011 UK census recorded the town's population as 63,298.


title: Stourbridge

text: Stourbridge is about west of Birmingham. Sitting within the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley at the southwestern edge of the Black Country and West Midlands conurbation, Stourbridge includes the suburbs of Amblecote, Lye, Norton, Oldswinford, Pedmore,Stambermill, Stourton, Wollaston, Wollescote and Wordsley.


title: Stourbridge

text: Much of Stourbridge consists of residential streets interspersed with green spaces. Mary Stevens Park, opened in 1931, has a lake, a bandstand, a cafe, and a mixture of open spaces and woodland.


title: Stourbridge

text: Bordered by green belt land, Stourbridge is close to countryside with the Clent Hills to the south and southwest Staffordshire and Kinver Edge to the west.


title: Stourbridge

text: Stourbridge was listed in the 1255 Worcestershire assize roll as Sturbrug or Sturesbridge. The medieval township was named for a bridge which crossed the River Stour. It lay within the manor of Swynford or Suineford (now Old Swinford), which appears in William the Conqueror's Domesday Book of 1086.


title: Stourbridge

text: In 1966, the Stourbridge border between Worcestershire and Staffordshire, which for centuries had been marked by the River Stour, was moved a couple of miles north when Amblecote was incorporated into the Borough of Stourbridge. Following the Local Government Act 1972, Stourbridge was amalgamated into the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley and became part of the wider West Midlands county in 1974.


title: Stourbridge

text: The town gives its name to local glass production, which has been manufactured since the early 1600s. The local clay proved particularly suitable for the industry, taken up predominantly after the immigration of French coal miners in the Huguenot diaspora. However, most of the glass industry was actually located in surrounding areas including Wordsley, Amblecote and Oldswinford. The rich natural resources of coal and fireclay for lining furnaces made it the perfect location for the industry. Glass making peaked in the 19th century, encouraged by the famous glass-making family, the Jeavons.


title: Stourbridge

text: The 1861 census identified that 1,032 residents of Stourbridge were involved in the glass trade in some way. Of these, 541 were glass workers - an increase from 409 in 1851, believed to be partly caused by the collapse of the glass industry in nearby Dudley in the 1850s. The vast majority of those involved in the glass trade came from Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Shropshire. 9% came from other parts of England and 0.2% had come from abroad. Of particular note are glass cutters, as 8.1% had come from Ireland, believed to be as a result of the decline of the Irish glasscutting industry in the first half of the 1800s. The houses inhabited by glassworkers were of a much better quality in comparison to the slums in which the nailmakers of Lye and Wollescote lived. However, only a few glassworkers owned their own houses.


title: Stourbridge

text: The Red House Cone, thought to be the only complete remaining glass cone of its kind, stands on the Stourbridge Canal at Wordsley. It is the site of the Red House Glass Museum and there are regular demonstrations of traditional glass blowing.


title: Stourbridge

text: Today, Stourbridge is the most affluent town in the Dudley Metropolitan Borough although it continues to suffer deprivation in some parts. Some people retain the traditional Black Country accent and dialect.


title: Stourbridge

text: Stourbridge High Street is home to a mix of chain and independent shops, pubs, coffee shops, restaurants, gyms and a yoga studio. Quaint Victoria Passage dates back to the Victorian era. Off the High Street is the Ryemarket Shopping Centre with retailers including Waitrose and WHSmith. Nearby Lye is known for its many Balti restaurants.