Talk:Karl Dönitz/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The reasoning behind why Hitler chose Doenitz as his successor is a matter of considerable doubt. Certainly, he mistrusted Himmler and Goering at that point and had stripped both of their positions prior to his death. But there are also reports that Hitler chose his naval chief because he felt that of all the German armed forces, only the Kriegsmarine had served him faithfully to the end, and therefore, he chose its leader. There's also speculation that Hitler knew the German armies would have to surrender, and that the Allies would not treat with someone known to have committed criminal acts. Doenitz certainly did not want to be the next Fuehrer, but he was able to negotiate a surrender that saved a lot of Germans from the Red Army.
We'll never know since Hitler is long since dead, but I think there's more to it than the article suggests. John
and many historians would agree that Dönitz did not participate in and had no knowledge of the Holocaust.
- I would like to have some proof for the second part of the statement ("no knowledge") - I will remove it by now.
- --zeno 15:09, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I removed the hagiographic sentence "Admiral Dönitz will always be remembered for taking part in heroic rescues hastily undertaken against the Fuehrer's will, in order to save millions of refugees being pushed onto the frozen Baltic Sea in West and East Prussia." I would like a citation describing Dönitz part in this heroic rescue, and proof that he will always be remembered for it.
I also removed the poorly-punctuated rhetorical question "The Laconia incident raises the question ,was the senior officer on duty that day, US Captain Robert C. Richardson III ,ever convicted for war crimes, when his order "Sink sub" killed thousands of people during a rescue mission ?" The Laconia incident did not involve thousands of casualties, and Captain Richardson's villainy is not pertinent here.
--the Epopt 17:25, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Was Doenitz a "real" Nazi
I assume that Doenitz was a member of the Nazi party.
Do any of his actions or writings show that he believed or sympathized with Nazi ideology? It's always suggested that the Kriegsmarine was decidedly anti-Hitler, and retained some Jewish officers when this would have been unthinkable in the Wehrmacht or Luftwaffe.
Though nothing is mentioned of this in the text, I assume that Doenitz's conviction on the basis of "unrestricted" submarine warfare was pushed by the British rather than the Americans. Nimitz was right to point out that the US had done exactly the same thing in the Pacific.
- Dönitz was never a member of the Nazi Party. He supported Hitler and the Nazis as the lesser of two evils -- the greater evil being the rapidly-growing Communist Party. <Insert analogy to USian presidential election voting strategy here.> --the Epopt 02:30, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Inconsistency with another article
Adolf Hitler states that Hitler's testament appointed Dönitz to be Führer, but this article claims Dönitz was to be President of Germany. This inconsistency should be researched and corrected. User:avarame
Surely there's a better way to explain that it's "Doenitz" sans umlauts? Or is that the proper Wikipedia way? Mkilly 09:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- It should probably be mentioned in passing, yes, since this is the ENGLISH wikipedia, and us folks who speak English are more likely to say Doenitz, lacking easily accessible umlauts. --Golbez 16:55, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
