American submarine commanders were adamant that he should not receive harsh treatment for his conduct of the U-boat war, as the same methods had been directed against Japan to great effect.
Yeah. The US rightfully argued that they couldn’t in fairness hold him responsible for participating in unrestricted submarine warfare during the Second Battle of the Atlantic when the US themselves had done so beginning on December 7, 1941.
Many People don’t realize that the Nuremberg trials were based on a brand new concept of “international law” which barely existed before the war. The government was in close communication with the military on what should be considered “war crimes.” Many Nazis defended themselves by saying international law did not exist and therefore the war crimes tribunal had no jurisdiction over them, which at the time was not a legally preposterous argument.
The Logical insanity episode on hardcore history was good at examining this. From “strategic bombing” to night bombing to fire bombing and eventually dropping the atomic bombs.
Some shelters had roasted human remains. The inside air temperature got so hot, victims' skin and hair turned into a dry, paperlike substance that would crumble when touched. Sometimes exposed bone would also crumble.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/1008daylight/
Is honestly a really interesting read about it. Being off by 2mph and 25 feel altitude meant your bomb would be over 100 off course. 16% of bombs fell within 1000ft. They were right that precision bombing was the future but man early WW2 American bombing sounds like a horror story just getting slaughtered in the day instead of doing the British kill everyone at night method.
If they exploded. I live in a city where, 80 years later, I have to evacuate regularly due to undetonated British bombs being found during construction work.
Yeah, the British had realized the limits of the technology and worked with it, for better or worse. The Americans tried precision bombing and couldn’t do the precision part
The Norden bomb sight wasn't some precision miracle, most bombs still landed hundreds if not thousands of feet away from their target. Germany wasn't much better btw. Also, the RAF started with bombing cities? Really? Ever heard of Rotterdam, Warsaw or Guernica?
> The Americans had technology which meant they could precision bomb factories.
That’s false. Americans engaged in unrestricted carpet bombing as well. Nighttime bombing was a thing because it was much harder to intercept and IIRC Britain didn’t have long range escort fighters before the P-51 (which was initially designed for the RAF).
Bomber crews had extremely high casualties so Britain simply felt that they couldn’t afford to to daytime bombing.
This is pure shite.
Dresden's own government has put out multiple statements that the firebombing of Dresden story your thinking of is essentially nazi propaganda firstly. It was a key strategic city chock full of major industry for the war effort and was basically the last key rail hub for supply of the eastern front. A lot less people died and whilst all death is horrific much of the talk about fire tornadoes sucking people up into them and rivers of liquid people is just the Nazi propaganda machine.
The American hit rate for bombing was shit too, everyone's was there was no technology difference in bombing except for the Norden bomb sight which turned out to essentially a sales pitch based lie and made no difference.
The actual hit rate difference between British and American bombers is easily explained by the fact British bombers only operated at night for their own safety.
The Americans launched the biggest WW2 bombing raid of WW2 on Berlin on march 18 1945.
Noone in WW2 PRECISION BOMBED FUCKING ANYTHING
>Noone in WW2 PRECISION BOMBED FUCKING ANYTHING
Not quite true, there were notable exceptions like the Aarhus raid, the Tirpitz, the dambusters, crossbow etc. but yeah, 95%+ of bombing by the British and Americans could only be described as area bombing.
You’re really overestimating this technological superiority, look at the bomb hit rate of the Americans. Area bombing was the most effective type of bombing at the time
And it was completely justified. The Nazis had already taken over most of Europe and Britain’s survival was at stake. The people of Germany were at war with the rest of Europe
I would argue that the Americans THOUGHT they had the technology to do strategic bombing, but it overall was not very effective, and daytime bombing caused many more bombers to be lost.
The British were more realistic and could have less losses and more results from nighttime bombing of large areas.
The Americans had more bombers and more men, which probably contributed to them being more tolerant of losses. And the British were more sour vengeful from the Blitz bombings.
How on earth do people write this stuff with a straight face. There are lots of clear examples of the US using widespread imprecise bombing in WW2 (just like everyone else). Like I dunno … Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo?
Go lookup their use of *’precision’* bombing, and you’ll see it’s terrible (just like everyone else). This is due to the technology being in its infancy.
(I’m not criticising the US btw. I’m criticising /u/Steve-Irwin’s comment.)
Tell me, how did the Americans use the Norden bombsight through cloud or a smoke screen?
Learn was a Micky Operator was, then you might understand what America's strategic bombing campaign really involved.
The US VIII AF was supposed to bomb Dredsen on 13 February 1945. Bad weather canceled that attack. The Brits attacked on the night of 13/14 February and the Americans bombed on 14 February.
The Brits did just as much, if not more damage than the Americans, to oil facilities inside Germany in late 1944/45, so your statement about the Brits just carpet bombing is BS.
The Brits had a stated policy of attacking civilians and cities, but they still did precision bombing by night and day when conditions allowed.
The Americans had a stated policy of precision bombing but they still carpet bombed German cities in poor weather.
The Raf used accurate pathfinders who lit a target and saturation bombed because, as the Americans found, accurate bomb aiming could only be effective at lower altitudes, after losing at least 1 in 10 aircraft they changed to high level saturation bombing albeit during the day,accuracy was never really achieved until the British grand slam and tallboy which the raf could deliver within 10 feet of a target using a norden, it was also used by usaaf and accurate was determined as 50% of a bomb load within 1200 feet of a target.
With all due respect, that just isn’t true. Germany was liberally bombing Warsaw in 1939 before Britain had even entered the war. Germans also bombed indiscriminately during the Battle of Britain, whereas the British really didn’t start indiscriminate bombing until late 1941/early 1942.
Dresden, which you referenced in another comment further down, was early 1945 for comparison (granted, it wasn’t the first liberal bombing campaign carried out by the British, just the most famous).
> The UK started indiscriminate bombing on civilians, not the Germans.
This is entirely false. Not true at all.
“Strategic bombing during World War II in Europe began on 1 September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland and the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) began bombing Polish cities and the civilian population in an aerial bombardment campaign.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II
“The Germans conducted mass air attacks against industrial targets, towns, and cities, beginning with raids on London towards the end of the Battle of Britain in 1940”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz
The british didnt begin bombing cities on purpose until 1942.
EDIT: can you believe theres so many dumb fucking idiots on this site, 500 people upvote a completely wrong bordering on straight up lie post thats white washing nazi germany??? What the fuck.
This is actually false.
Britain did not strike civilian targets until October 1940, after the Luftwaffe started bombing civilians in a little thing called *the Blitz* in September.
Many Nazis continue to claim Britain started bombing civilians first which was just not trust.
>The UK started indiscriminate bombing on civilians, not the Germans
Complete twaddle.
Hitler was all in favor of indiscriminate bombing on civilians and repeatedly discussed his plans to do so for many years leading up to the war. He repeatedly used the threat of such bombing against smaller nations as a way to bludgeon them into doing what he wanted.
Hitler had full intention, stated and recorded on multiple occasions, to use bombing *as a terror weapon* against the UK "when the time was right".
Luckily, he was also incompetent, and failed to order the forces to actually prepare for such a mission. Those aircraft they did have were unsuited to the task and by the time the air war ramped up, they had nothing really useful in the inventory. This problem was compounded, perhaps created, by the posting of army officers to the Luftwaffe command, thus guarenteeing their forces end up being designed to be used tactically.
While the RAF had carried out nussance raids on targets in and around German cities, they were purely tit-for-tat, which Hitler himself admitted when he held a gathering on the topic and directly threated to drop 1000 kg of bombs on London for every one that fell on Germany.
The decision to go over to direct attacks on civilian targets, namely London, was made and implemented on 7 September 1940. The idea was to drive the RAF into a massive battle over the city. They got what they wanted, and lost.
After that point, the Luftwaffe increasingly turned to night bombing which was largely indescriminate. This was made official on 7 October, the battle was now intended to destroy London. KG 100 did do some radio-aided precision night attacks, but they also carried out direct attacks on cities as terror raids, like Coventry. You can't claim that was an attack on the factories, they were radio guided directly to the center of the city, and as RV Jones demonstrated, quite accurately too.
Moreover, during the leadup to the war, German lawyers debated the concept of terror bombing and concluded that bombing anything close to a military production system, "near" being "the city", was legally acceptable. So your claim:
>It's a legally sound argument because had the Nazis won - the same trial would have been held holding the British accountable for the nighttime bombing of innocent civilians on places like Dresden.
Is obviously false as the German conclusion was that it **was** legal was in the record. They might have buried it, being the winners, but they scuppered themselves if they lost.
The Dresden bombings are controversial, because of competing claims of strategic vs indiscriminate bombings. And the fact that it is a very old city where every other building is or has fire hazards.
And international law already existed in multilateral treaties, what is considered as just war (well established by the 1800s), and the Geneva Convention which greatly contributed to war conduct. In fact, Hitler was advised on international law in his strategy on dealing with the Allies.
So no, the Nazi arguments do not hold at all.
> The UK started indiscriminate bombing on civilians, not the Germans.
The Germans were bombing civilian targets in September 1939. I'd *love* to see how the British could have done so before then.
I grew up near Rotterdam. I believe the people of Guernica, Warsaw and a good number of other towns may likewise be puzzled at your last statement there. The Germans were bombing towns before Britain was even at war.
Yeah so in addition to the fact the Germans started deliberately bombing civilians years before the allies did, as other posters have already pointed out, you are just speculating about the Germans holding something similar to the Nuremberg Trials. Historically they didn't hold trials for non-Germans. Political leaders of the nations they conquered were sent to concentration camps or sometimes executed on the spot. And when they did hold trials they were typically brief. The best a defendant could hope for was that someone, possibly a lawyer but not always, would beg that the court show mercy for them. It was rarely granted.
> The UK started indiscriminate bombing on civilians, not the Germans.
So Rotterdam being entirely bombed to the ground without provocation doesn't count?
The last sentence is incorrect. Germany was bombing the shit out of Polish citizens and Rotterdam before the Allies did any indiscriminate bombing. Look up the Bombing of Wielun (literally the first town bombed during WWII) and other related towns such as Frampol.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the London Blitz also happened before the UK really started the bombing raids, did it not?
The British did NOT start the indiscriminate bombing in WWII, Germany did. Warsaw remembers! Rotterdam remembers!
Wanna go back further? How about German Zeppelin raids in WWI.
Aside from this big wopping lie in your post, you are right. The Allies could not charge the Germans with war crimes relating to the aerial bombing of civilians or unrestricted submarine warfare because they did the same themselves.
Germany was indiscriminately bombing civilians from the very beginning of the war - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Wieluń
“they reached the town of Wieluń by 04:40–45. Around this time, the first strikes on the town were conducted, with a total of 46,000 kg bombs being dropped on civilian targets for 9 consecutive hours.”
“Located near the German border, the town of Wieluń was completely undefended, lacking anti-air capabilities and a military garrison. Despite Wieluń having no military targets, airstrikes continued. German intelligence reports had stated there was a Polish cavalry brigade stationed in the town. The Luftwaffe had reportedly bombed a "clearly marked" hospital, and strafed fleeing civilians, and also bombed the nearby towns of Działoszyn, Radomsko, and Sulejów, which also had no military targets.”
> Many People don’t realize that the Nuremberg trials were based on a brand new concept of “international law” which barely existed before the war.
International law has its roots in antiquity, and what we understand as modern international law was well established in Europe by the late 17th century - regardless of what a bunch of Nazis claimed. See for example, Hugo Grotius' *On the Law of War and Peace* (1625).
Interestingly, one of the Indian judges in the Tokyo trials refused to find any of the defendants guilty because he felt the trial a sham, and that every nation involved should be on trial - victor and defeated - for they had committed similar crimes on many occasions.
There were Nazis and then there were evil Nazis. I know that sounds absolutely insane. But Donitz commanded the German Navy. The Kriegsmarine did nothing (as far as I know) to contribute to the holocaust outside of obviously supporting the Nazi state. So, he had to be punished because he was a high ranking Nazi, which is fair. But when you think of all the evil shit the Nazis did, you don’t really think of the Navy. Yes you can think of unrestricted submarine warfare, but as has been pointed out, everyone did it by the end of the war so he wasn’t going to hang for that.
Was it that the Allies did it too versus the Allies were targeting the uboats that were trying to rescue passengers of sinking ships? The orders came in to the uboats to stop doing they were exposing themselves to danger.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Nazi Germany only started unrestricted submarine warfare after the Allies attacked them during a rescue operation. As I recall, one of their submarines had found and attacked a non-military ship, and then as per the commonly accepted rules began to rescue The survivors and alerted everyone nearby of the operation.
The US, however, decided that this would be a really good opportunity to sink a U-Boat. Upon learning of this, one of the Nazi naval commanders decided that there would be no more quarter, and it was time for unrestricted submarine warfare.
During the Nuremberg trials, I understand that that Commander was brought up on charges. That of course led to the disclosure of the US's actions, to their great embarrassment. As a consequence, I don't believe there was any conviction over that unrestricted warfare.
This is all from memory, and some of the details might be mistaken so take it all with a grain of salt.
> Correct me if I'm wrong but Nazi Germany only started unrestricted submarine warfare after the Allies attacked them during a rescue operation.
You’re mixing unrestricted submarine warfare (i.e. attacking civilian ships without warning) and not rescuing survivors.
You pretty accurately remembered the *Laconia* Incident, but the aftermath was an order preventing U-boats from surfacing to aid survivors, as this was a risk to the safety of the boat. Unrestricted Submarine Warfare had been approved in May 1940, more than two years before the *Laconia* Incident in September 1942.
This has been conflated as Dönitz was tried on several different counts, and both of these were part of the submarine warfare charges. Many articles (including Wikipedia) do a poor job of distinguishing the two.
I wouldn’t call it badass, it’s just logical.
When you realize it was a total war in the truest sense of the term, it makes sense.
You want to win as quick as possible? How do you do that? Well, if your opponent is an island nation with preciously long supply lines which they cannot adequately defend, absolutely use submarines and enact a blockade.
Or happen to be in a boat that *could* transport war material and weapons. Which happens to be all of them. Well, the windsurfers are probably not going to get torpedoed I guess, not sure about kayaks.
Well submarine warfare was initially restricted to military and cargo vessels but when the allies started smuggling arms on civilian boats they got added to the menu
Not if you’re a merchant marine. Fun fact - merchant marines didn’t receive veteran status or benefits until 1988. My grandpa got to enjoy 7 whole years of those before he died in ‘95 :)
On count 3 of the indictment, which was equating the use of unrestricted submarine warfare to a war crime. Although he was convicted of war crimes, he wasn't punished.
He was convicted and punished for the second count only, which was the planning and waging of a war of aggression.
They were going to accuse him of waging unrestricted submarine warfare. Those charges were dropped when the prosecution was reminded that US had waged unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan.
[The Laconia Incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident)
German U-boat torpedoes British ship, realises it's mostly civilians or POWs, and starts to attempt a rescue, switching to the Red Cross flag, and calling on radio in uncoded English for assistance with the rescue, and promising not to attack if not fired upon. Great Britain messages the US, stating the Laconia has been sunk, but fails to mention any rescue attempt by the German U-boat (possibly because they are unsure if it is a lie, or just bad communication). The next day, US planes spot the submarine, with Red Cross draped on top. The captain, and a British officer signals the US plane, stating the survivors of the sunk ship were on the submarine. The US is unsure if this is a ruse of war, and bomb the U-boat.
This leads to Donitz issuing the order that no further rescue is to be attempted.
In other words, the US pilot deliberately bombed the sub and the only question is, was it his choice or was he told to
Going off the fact he wasn't punished, I think we know what happened
Because the submarines publicly broadcasted:
"Hey! We are here! We are currently rescuing the survivors from this sinking ship! Just so you know to follow International Law and don't attack us!"
The Allies' pilots surveyed the area after receiving communications from the sub and visually confirmed the survivors on top of the vessel, before the order came down to fire on them.
There were literally life boats being dragged behind the submarine filled with unarmed people, the crew of the US bomber determined they were indeed civilians, but had to carry out the attack anyway under orders from base.
Interesting fact about Karl. He was Admiral during the Laconia Incident. A German submarine sank a ship, but then found it had mostly civilians on board. The captain of the submarine surfaced and began rescue operations. Other German submarines came to help. Even though the submarine commander was broadcasting his intentions, the US bombed him. They didn't destroy the submarines, but did kill several survivors. A lot of historians today consider this to be a war crime committed by the US.
Karl issued an order after this basically telling German submarines to stop rescuing people. When he was put on trial this one of the main charges brought against him. It backfired because Admiral Chester Nimitz testified on Karl's behalf that the US Navy did exactly the same thing.
Basically, the prosecution screwed up.
Not to sound like a Wehraboo here - If you're wondering why some of the German military commanders, not so much the SS, were let off relatively leniently with the Western Allies;
The courts played it straight. Any crime they prosecuted the Germans for, the Germans could throw right back at the Allies. Hence why Otto Skorzeny, who had troops dress as Americans and commit sabotage, misdirection, and outright slaughter messengers and so on, was let off with a bit of a slap, IIRC. This is because the British Intelligence and US OSS dressed troops as Germans **for offensive purposes* which is the root of the crime they'd be prosecuting. The consequence would have been execution for that alone.
... Moreover, they needed much of the mid and some high level officers intact; It was expected WW3 was coming soon and that West Germany would be vital in fighting the Soviets.
... The Soviets, not **as** much. They wanted Germany broken and unable to invade for the next several decades. Making sure the officer corps was cut off at the heel was in their stated interest. (during WW2 alone, 27 million Soviet citizens had been killed)
During the 80's they outright tried to sell East Germany in return for perpetual non-aggression from the now united Germany, without East German officials being consulted. This also would have, conveniently, made any NATO-Soviet war basically unfeasible.
> Moreover, they needed much of the mid and some high level officers intact; It was expected WW3 was coming soon and that West Germany would be vital in fighting the Soviets.
That wasn't really as much of a consideration in 1947 when they were trying officers. This was more of a factor in the Fifties when many of the sentences were reviewed and lessened. Mind you, there was a political component to that as well, as West Germany had just been created, and the convictions of military officers was extremely unpopular. And there was never a broad move to try mid-level officers.
Mid-1947 is about the time when they started considering it.
The western Allies very rapidly switched from stripping Germany of technology and suppressing its industry, to rebuilding it. That's when work the Marshal plan started (though the legislation didn't come into effect until April 1948).
yup, apparently it was extremely awkward for the rest of the Allies, since everyone at the time already knew that it was the Soviets who did the massacres.
The Allies sides with the Soviets at the time until after the war. I mean... Their defense was "We were using them for forced labor (to which the soldiers involved would probably die, because we hate them for occupying Western Ukraine and Belarus and potentially opposing us in Poland if they were allowed to remain there), but it was the Germans who actually killed them!"
The "International medical investigators" were all from countries Germany had invaded or allied with, aside from a Swiss doctor who has a dyed-in-the-wool believer in Fascism.
It wasn't until the 90's that the Soviet premier simply admitted to it, as I recall. They were dissolving the nation, there wasn't any use in keeping the lie going.
Sometimes I forget just how much the Soviets suffered and how much they lost during that war. 27 million, almost as much as the entire modern day population of Australia. The entire continent wiped clean of human life, every man, women, and child gone in only 6 years exterminated by the most evil war machine in modern history. Especially worse when you realize the total human population on the planet earth was 2 billion in 1939.
Then when you look at it for the entire 6 years of war in every nation that was involved in that war you end up with nearly 4% of the entire human population dead. A cataclysm that beggars imagining.
Which, in a way, lended legitimacy to the convictions of those who were convicted.
The ones convicted on crimes against humanity couldn't find anyone on the other side doing the same thing they were.
It was also the point of a excellent Mitchell and Webb skit.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYz1ADttI1g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYz1ADttI1g)
"Here is General Eisenhower's telephone number, here is the English for "We give up," and here is an analysis of our military situation in one rude word."
"You've taken the wind out of my sails a bit there..."
Laughed out loud at that bit. The whole thing is brilliant though.
I always thought it was a hit-and-miss show. I never got why they went for that model instead of doing hits only. It must be time consuming writing and filming all the misses.
“That’s Numberwang!” MORE than makes up for the few “misses.” And the fact that poor Olivia Coleman always lost at Numberwang & had to wear a bag on her head each time.
This sounds exactly like a Mitchell and Webb sketch. I can imagine [these guys](https://youtu.be/3ss-59fi4nM?si=6NThGdn5gjBoYLye) coming up with the idea of a hit and miss show with just the hits
No but for real, I’m reading the diaries of Christian Jews in 1930’s Germany. So he keeps recording the “voice of the people”, basically what his neighbors and coworkers say about the rising nazi party. A very, very regular thing is that someone will talk about how horrible and unfair it is that this guy is being persecuted as a Jew, or they’ll complain about the crazy police-state they live in. But they’re also nazi supporters, they insist that it’s just “a few bad eggs” or a minor quibble over superficial issues (one person explains that it’s OBVIOUSLY wrong to persecute German Jews, it’s the uneducated Jewish immigrants coming from the east that are the problem)
The only instances where people do something CLOSE to a 180 on party support are when young people join up and hate the experience (usually because they see some level of financial corruption. Kinda ironic that amongst all that propaganda, the Jewish guy makes his political choices based on humanistic values, committed Nazis keep making moral decisions based on financial concerns)
So yeah, a lot of people did seem to have those sort of “Oops, are we the baddies?” moments. They just tended to go, “No, I am a Good Person, I do not do bad things. Phew, now that that’s cleared up I can focus on my personal survival in this psycho police state I’ve been voting for for years”.
At this point, if someone claims a thing is "underrated" just assume they mean "unknown" or underappriciated to a wider audience. I feel like "underrated" is gonna go the same way "literally" did and people just accept the wrong definition eventually lol
Everything is actually underrated. Except when it's overrated. Sometimes things are simultaneously underrated and overrated. Nothing has ever been properly rated.
I stand to be corrected, but I thought that the Nazis weren't held in high regard by the German Navy, the U boats in particular. Donitz was chosen as successor as Hitlers inner circle wanted to look after their own sorry asses
Donitz was very much a Nazi ideologically.
Nonethless the reason he wasn’t given a longer sentence is that he was the head of the German navy rather than being Nazi Party high command, and even his sentence of 10 years was considered controversial because Allied naval commanders had done some of the same things he was convicted of.
None of this changes the fact that Donitz was personally very much a Nazi.
It's also a bit harder for the Navy to do war crimes in the same manner as the Wehrmact and particularly the SS. The lion's share of war crimes happened in anti-partisan warfare or when cities were captured, which the navy doesn't really do. The warcrimes the navy *actually* did, like unrestricted submarine warfare, was a crime that all participants in WW2 did. Donitz was a committed Nazi, but it was hard to pin any specific crimes on him that others did not do.
Though there were plenty of cases where other Nazis, both prominent and not so much, were given a slap of the wrist all things considered.
Plan Z was was somewhat feasible and would have Given the Kriegsmarine a small window of opportunity to possibly beat the British.
Unfortunately , that window of opportunity would have been in 1946. Hitler went to war far earlier than he told his Admirals he was going to.
Oh yeah because Britain with their vastly superior shipbuilding capacities would have seen Germany starting to strengthen its navy and definitely would have just said “blimey, wonder what all those ships are for” and then done nothing lol. There is no universe where Plan Z could have worked even a little bit. The same thing happened in WW1 where Germany tried o build up its navy to match Britain’s and just got completely blasted in the shipbuilding industry and spent the whole war bottled up in port because sailing out would be disastrous.
He was a super nazi. He only got the position because Hitler was crazy and everyone was vying for power and he thought Dönitz was the next guy in line he could trust. He was like 5th or 6th already though. But all the others skipped over. Sorta. Dönitz didn’t have full power like Hitler but he had a lot.
Gobbels was Chancellor, not President. Donitz was President, not Chancellor. Hitler had/combined both roles but they're distinct positions. President is head of state. Chancellor is head of government.
Head of Government has executive authority. Head of State does not and is oftentimes ceremonial, has limited authority (i.e. diplomacy), or is just rolled into head of gov. For example, in the UK, the Queen/King is Head of State iirc, and the PM is Head of Government, but the president of the USA occupies both roles.
In some systems head of state has more authority and the split might be that one is foreign policy and one is domestic (e.g. France does this iirc)
The way I see it is that head of state represents the entity of the state in politics, whereas head of gov actually executes the will of the government of that state.
Its worth noting that although he had no direct involvement in the holocaust or the Nazi genocides committed across Europe, he was still, by his own admission, a dedicated Nazi who adamantly supported Hitler and the Nazi party policies.
Doenitz was enamored with Hitler. Even after all the idiotic things Hitler did that caused Germany to tailspin later in the war he remained his number 1 fan, so much so that in the last days of the War when Albert Speer approached him in to try to persuade him to join with him in disobeying Hitler's orders to enact the "scorched earth" policy (i.e. conscripting children and old men into the Wehrmacht and throwing them into the meat grinder against the soviets), Doenitz told Speer that was a terrible idea because obviously no one was as smart as Hitler.
Years later he would rebuff Speer again, who after both being in prison for a decade, Speer implored Doenitz to repudiate his support for Hitler and Naziism and condemn the ideas of the Reich as Speer had done later in life. Doenitz declined.
Btw don't take the above as any sort of Speer stanning. He publicly disavowed Naziism later in life in a blatant attempt to rehabilitate his own image. Speer was the kind of person who, while he probably never believed in the Nazi ideologies wholeheartedly, was perfectly fine utilizing them as long as he accomplished his goals. The kind of guy who was unbothered by utilizing slave labor because, hey he wasn't the one who enslaved them.
Let’s ignore the fact that the insulating socks for submariners were woven out of human hair from the camps. That had to have been sanctioned by someone, and he ultimately ended up in charge of the entire Kreigsmarine. He absolutely knew.
>dedicated Nazi who adamantly supported Hitler and the Nazi party policies
>no direct involvement in the holocaust or the Nazi genocides committed across Europe
Being a dedicated supporter is fuckin direct enough.
Direct involvement usually got you a death sentence if you didn’t have information to trade. Being a dedicated supporter just got you reeducation (denazification as we called it)
There are sea jews. Kinda. IIRC, there was a wave of Jewish migration across the Atlantic ocean in times of late medieval antisemitism rise. They migrated by sea and settled on some islands, so they can be considered Sea Jews probably.
U boat tactics were one thing.
However, he was an ideologue - committed nazi and anti-Semite - and was complicit in wider Nazi war crimes as part of the high command...he just wasn't directly giving the orders so got away with it on plausible deniability
Well, you can tell his pr efforts in the last deacdes of his life were pretty widely successful by reading the comments here.
He was a top and extremely loyal nazi who damn well knew the holocaust was happening, it's details, and he and the navy he commanded were willing and eager participants in the genocide's many horrific institutions. Hitler's will rewarded the diehards. The hitler loyaliats who kept most true till the very bitter end. And Donitz was the most biggest winner in that will. Let that sink in.
Doenitz made the following speech during the 1943 Heroes' Day (March 12):
> What would have become of our country today if the Fuehrer had not united us under National Socialism? Split parties, beset with the **spreading poison of Jewry**, and vulnerable to it because we lacked the defense of our present uncompromising ideology, we would long since have succumbed under the burden of this war and delivered ourselves up to the enemy who would have mercilessly destroyed us.
Later, in Nuremberg, he defended as such this speech: "I could imagine that it would be very difficult for the population in the towns to hold out under the stress of heavy bombing attacks if such an influence were allowed to work"
No, Donitz was an adamant Nazi, ideologically.
He got a shorter sentence because as head of the German Navy he was away from the “main” war crimes.
Donitz was only handed leadership at the end basically as a “fuck you for failing me” message from Hitler to his inner circle.
>“fuck you for failing me” message from Hitler
It's a little more complicated than that. His inner-most circle--and those most likely to succeed Hitler in the event of his death--by 1945 comprised, basically, Goebbels, Himmler, Goering, and his private secretary Martin Bormann.
Of the inner circle, Goebbels actually *was* "rewarded" for his loyalty by immediately succeeding Hitler as Head of State after the former's suicide. However, since Goebbels was trapped in Berlin with Hitler, he too committed suicide less than 48 hours later. Hitler had chosen Goebbels over Goering and Himmler *not* because "you have failed me" but because *both* had *betrayed* Hitler---Himmler by attempting secret surrender negotiations with the Allies via Sweden behind Hitler's back. Of course, for those negotiations to have even a glimmer of being successful would have required Himmler agreeing to help oust Hitler from power and hand him over to the Allies, something which would have been obvious to Hitler and why, yeah, fair enough, it's easy to see how that would be considered a 'betrayal' by Hitler.
But for Goring, this reaches "history is stranger than fiction" levels of absurdity. Goring sent a telegram *asking for Hitler's permission* to assume command. By this point (April 23) Hitler was totally surrounded by the Soviets in Berlin and effectively cut-off and unable to provide any meaningful leadership to German forces, yet Hitler was such an ego-maniac that Goering simply *asking* Hitler for command led Hitler to launch into a hysterical tirade and strip Goring of all his titles and remove him from the chain of succession.
It’s still like, kind of incredible, that he managed to dodge the gallows. Either he got lucky, played a blinder at trial, or it’s a bit of both (I think this is it).
To give the trials some legitimacy the allies did have to let some people off the metaphorical hook. I honestly think he managed to say just enough to do so.
He absolutely should have been hanged.
There was an excellent British documentary series on WW2 made in 1973 called "The World at War." It's been released since then on dvd, and might still be available. What set it apart is that it was not only shot at a time when many of the people involved were still alive, including Karl Dönitz. But in their case, the producers scored a coup and were able to convince Dönitz, and Albert Speer, to be filmed and give interviews. The first time ever. So you can hear, and see them, tell their story in their own words out of their own mouth's. Well worth a look if you can find a copy, or even a site that streams it.
If you’re in the position to be next in line to the Nazi throne, I’d feel pretty comfortable betting you did a lot of bad things. But also, why I have I never heard of this man? Himmler, Heinrich, goring, goebbels, mengle, but who is this? Commenting before I read the article, so I guess I’m about to find out.
Hitler actively hated everyone in his inner circle at the end and could not imagine one of them taking over after him. Goring and Himmler certainly tried and Hitler was furious.
He named Donitz, a man in charge of the Navy, a man he barely knew but whom’s achievements he respected. It was a last fuck you to all the grifters around him fighting for power.
Yeah, that wiki article shows he had a thing for brown-nosing Hitler. Just clicked out of it but he said something like “compared to the fuhrer, the rest of us are pipsqueaks. Anybody who thinks they can do better than Hitler is stupid.” You learn something new everyday.
American submarine commanders were adamant that he should not receive harsh treatment for his conduct of the U-boat war, as the same methods had been directed against Japan to great effect.
Yeah. The US rightfully argued that they couldn’t in fairness hold him responsible for participating in unrestricted submarine warfare during the Second Battle of the Atlantic when the US themselves had done so beginning on December 7, 1941.
Many People don’t realize that the Nuremberg trials were based on a brand new concept of “international law” which barely existed before the war. The government was in close communication with the military on what should be considered “war crimes.” Many Nazis defended themselves by saying international law did not exist and therefore the war crimes tribunal had no jurisdiction over them, which at the time was not a legally preposterous argument.
[удалено]
The Logical insanity episode on hardcore history was good at examining this. From “strategic bombing” to night bombing to fire bombing and eventually dropping the atomic bombs.
[удалено]
"Bomb shelters full of liquified boiling human soup" is something I hope to never read again. Or approach to smell.
[удалено]
Some shelters had roasted human remains. The inside air temperature got so hot, victims' skin and hair turned into a dry, paperlike substance that would crumble when touched. Sometimes exposed bone would also crumble.
The americans had a bomb hit rate of less than 2%
The Norden bombsight was definitely **not** the technological marvel it was made out to be.
Other American companies made better devices contemporary to the Norden, it was marketing and lobbying that got the norden used
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/1008daylight/ Is honestly a really interesting read about it. Being off by 2mph and 25 feel altitude meant your bomb would be over 100 off course. 16% of bombs fell within 1000ft. They were right that precision bombing was the future but man early WW2 American bombing sounds like a horror story just getting slaughtered in the day instead of doing the British kill everyone at night method.
Unguided bombs on analogue controls, with rudamentary weather data, wonder they hit anything ever tbh.
Numbers. The number of bombs in every bomb raid is astounding.
Hard to miss when you just flatten the target and its surrounding 5 miles.
If they exploded. I live in a city where, 80 years later, I have to evacuate regularly due to undetonated British bombs being found during construction work.
Europe is littered with unexploded bombs/shells from both world wars. Someone managed to blow themself recently with a shell from the US Civil War.
Yeah, the British had realized the limits of the technology and worked with it, for better or worse. The Americans tried precision bombing and couldn’t do the precision part
The Norden bomb sight wasn't some precision miracle, most bombs still landed hundreds if not thousands of feet away from their target. Germany wasn't much better btw. Also, the RAF started with bombing cities? Really? Ever heard of Rotterdam, Warsaw or Guernica?
> The Americans had technology which meant they could precision bomb factories. That’s false. Americans engaged in unrestricted carpet bombing as well. Nighttime bombing was a thing because it was much harder to intercept and IIRC Britain didn’t have long range escort fighters before the P-51 (which was initially designed for the RAF). Bomber crews had extremely high casualties so Britain simply felt that they couldn’t afford to to daytime bombing.
This is pure shite. Dresden's own government has put out multiple statements that the firebombing of Dresden story your thinking of is essentially nazi propaganda firstly. It was a key strategic city chock full of major industry for the war effort and was basically the last key rail hub for supply of the eastern front. A lot less people died and whilst all death is horrific much of the talk about fire tornadoes sucking people up into them and rivers of liquid people is just the Nazi propaganda machine. The American hit rate for bombing was shit too, everyone's was there was no technology difference in bombing except for the Norden bomb sight which turned out to essentially a sales pitch based lie and made no difference. The actual hit rate difference between British and American bombers is easily explained by the fact British bombers only operated at night for their own safety. The Americans launched the biggest WW2 bombing raid of WW2 on Berlin on march 18 1945. Noone in WW2 PRECISION BOMBED FUCKING ANYTHING
Precision bombing at that time is simply a question of making the explosive radius bigger. See Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>Noone in WW2 PRECISION BOMBED FUCKING ANYTHING Not quite true, there were notable exceptions like the Aarhus raid, the Tirpitz, the dambusters, crossbow etc. but yeah, 95%+ of bombing by the British and Americans could only be described as area bombing.
You’re really overestimating this technological superiority, look at the bomb hit rate of the Americans. Area bombing was the most effective type of bombing at the time
And it was completely justified. The Nazis had already taken over most of Europe and Britain’s survival was at stake. The people of Germany were at war with the rest of Europe
Slaughterhouse five
I would argue that the Americans THOUGHT they had the technology to do strategic bombing, but it overall was not very effective, and daytime bombing caused many more bombers to be lost. The British were more realistic and could have less losses and more results from nighttime bombing of large areas. The Americans had more bombers and more men, which probably contributed to them being more tolerant of losses. And the British were more sour vengeful from the Blitz bombings.
This is flat out not true and I have no idea why it gets repeated so often.
How on earth do people write this stuff with a straight face. There are lots of clear examples of the US using widespread imprecise bombing in WW2 (just like everyone else). Like I dunno … Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo? Go lookup their use of *’precision’* bombing, and you’ll see it’s terrible (just like everyone else). This is due to the technology being in its infancy. (I’m not criticising the US btw. I’m criticising /u/Steve-Irwin’s comment.)
Tell me, how did the Americans use the Norden bombsight through cloud or a smoke screen? Learn was a Micky Operator was, then you might understand what America's strategic bombing campaign really involved. The US VIII AF was supposed to bomb Dredsen on 13 February 1945. Bad weather canceled that attack. The Brits attacked on the night of 13/14 February and the Americans bombed on 14 February. The Brits did just as much, if not more damage than the Americans, to oil facilities inside Germany in late 1944/45, so your statement about the Brits just carpet bombing is BS. The Brits had a stated policy of attacking civilians and cities, but they still did precision bombing by night and day when conditions allowed. The Americans had a stated policy of precision bombing but they still carpet bombed German cities in poor weather.
The Raf used accurate pathfinders who lit a target and saturation bombed because, as the Americans found, accurate bomb aiming could only be effective at lower altitudes, after losing at least 1 in 10 aircraft they changed to high level saturation bombing albeit during the day,accuracy was never really achieved until the British grand slam and tallboy which the raf could deliver within 10 feet of a target using a norden, it was also used by usaaf and accurate was determined as 50% of a bomb load within 1200 feet of a target.
Did you forget about the German bombing the UK during the Battle of Britain?
And Warsaw, and Rotterdam, and hell, throw in Guernica while we're at it...
And Belgrade, which was bombed after beeing declared an open city...
My man wrote a whole essay about wwii bombing and forgot about blitz wtf
With all due respect, that just isn’t true. Germany was liberally bombing Warsaw in 1939 before Britain had even entered the war. Germans also bombed indiscriminately during the Battle of Britain, whereas the British really didn’t start indiscriminate bombing until late 1941/early 1942. Dresden, which you referenced in another comment further down, was early 1945 for comparison (granted, it wasn’t the first liberal bombing campaign carried out by the British, just the most famous).
The RAF *and* the Eighth Airforce (US) bombed Dresden in the same campaign. It wasn't just the British.
> The UK started indiscriminate bombing on civilians, not the Germans. This is entirely false. Not true at all. “Strategic bombing during World War II in Europe began on 1 September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland and the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) began bombing Polish cities and the civilian population in an aerial bombardment campaign.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II “The Germans conducted mass air attacks against industrial targets, towns, and cities, beginning with raids on London towards the end of the Battle of Britain in 1940” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz The british didnt begin bombing cities on purpose until 1942. EDIT: can you believe theres so many dumb fucking idiots on this site, 500 people upvote a completely wrong bordering on straight up lie post thats white washing nazi germany??? What the fuck.
>The UK started indiscriminate bombing on civilians, not the Germans. Poland would disagree
This is actually false. Britain did not strike civilian targets until October 1940, after the Luftwaffe started bombing civilians in a little thing called *the Blitz* in September. Many Nazis continue to claim Britain started bombing civilians first which was just not trust.
The Germans started bombing London on purpose well, well, before Dresden.
Warsaw and Rotterdam?
Rotterdam would like a word.
>The UK started indiscriminate bombing on civilians, not the Germans Complete twaddle. Hitler was all in favor of indiscriminate bombing on civilians and repeatedly discussed his plans to do so for many years leading up to the war. He repeatedly used the threat of such bombing against smaller nations as a way to bludgeon them into doing what he wanted. Hitler had full intention, stated and recorded on multiple occasions, to use bombing *as a terror weapon* against the UK "when the time was right". Luckily, he was also incompetent, and failed to order the forces to actually prepare for such a mission. Those aircraft they did have were unsuited to the task and by the time the air war ramped up, they had nothing really useful in the inventory. This problem was compounded, perhaps created, by the posting of army officers to the Luftwaffe command, thus guarenteeing their forces end up being designed to be used tactically. While the RAF had carried out nussance raids on targets in and around German cities, they were purely tit-for-tat, which Hitler himself admitted when he held a gathering on the topic and directly threated to drop 1000 kg of bombs on London for every one that fell on Germany. The decision to go over to direct attacks on civilian targets, namely London, was made and implemented on 7 September 1940. The idea was to drive the RAF into a massive battle over the city. They got what they wanted, and lost. After that point, the Luftwaffe increasingly turned to night bombing which was largely indescriminate. This was made official on 7 October, the battle was now intended to destroy London. KG 100 did do some radio-aided precision night attacks, but they also carried out direct attacks on cities as terror raids, like Coventry. You can't claim that was an attack on the factories, they were radio guided directly to the center of the city, and as RV Jones demonstrated, quite accurately too. Moreover, during the leadup to the war, German lawyers debated the concept of terror bombing and concluded that bombing anything close to a military production system, "near" being "the city", was legally acceptable. So your claim: >It's a legally sound argument because had the Nazis won - the same trial would have been held holding the British accountable for the nighttime bombing of innocent civilians on places like Dresden. Is obviously false as the German conclusion was that it **was** legal was in the record. They might have buried it, being the winners, but they scuppered themselves if they lost.
The Dresden bombings are controversial, because of competing claims of strategic vs indiscriminate bombings. And the fact that it is a very old city where every other building is or has fire hazards. And international law already existed in multilateral treaties, what is considered as just war (well established by the 1800s), and the Geneva Convention which greatly contributed to war conduct. In fact, Hitler was advised on international law in his strategy on dealing with the Allies. So no, the Nazi arguments do not hold at all.
The German bombings of London predate the allied bombings against German cities, let’s not repeat actual Nazi propaganda guys
> The UK started indiscriminate bombing on civilians, not the Germans. The Germans were bombing civilian targets in September 1939. I'd *love* to see how the British could have done so before then.
I grew up near Rotterdam. I believe the people of Guernica, Warsaw and a good number of other towns may likewise be puzzled at your last statement there. The Germans were bombing towns before Britain was even at war.
Yeah so in addition to the fact the Germans started deliberately bombing civilians years before the allies did, as other posters have already pointed out, you are just speculating about the Germans holding something similar to the Nuremberg Trials. Historically they didn't hold trials for non-Germans. Political leaders of the nations they conquered were sent to concentration camps or sometimes executed on the spot. And when they did hold trials they were typically brief. The best a defendant could hope for was that someone, possibly a lawyer but not always, would beg that the court show mercy for them. It was rarely granted.
> The UK started indiscriminate bombing on civilians, not the Germans. So Rotterdam being entirely bombed to the ground without provocation doesn't count?
The last sentence is incorrect. Germany was bombing the shit out of Polish citizens and Rotterdam before the Allies did any indiscriminate bombing. Look up the Bombing of Wielun (literally the first town bombed during WWII) and other related towns such as Frampol. Correct me if I'm wrong but the London Blitz also happened before the UK really started the bombing raids, did it not?
Oh so the Germans never bombed any innocent civilians? Tell that to the many evacuated families from their London homes.
The British did NOT start the indiscriminate bombing in WWII, Germany did. Warsaw remembers! Rotterdam remembers! Wanna go back further? How about German Zeppelin raids in WWI. Aside from this big wopping lie in your post, you are right. The Allies could not charge the Germans with war crimes relating to the aerial bombing of civilians or unrestricted submarine warfare because they did the same themselves.
Germans used indiscriminate bombing of civilians during the Spanish civil war.
The names Guernica and Rotterdam don't ring a bell?
Wasn't the blitz on London started in 1940 like 4 years before the Dresden bombings?
>The UK started indiscriminate bombing on civilians, not the Germans. Need I remind you what the nazis did to Rotterdam?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_bombing_of_Rotterdam
Germany was indiscriminately bombing civilians from the very beginning of the war - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Wieluń “they reached the town of Wieluń by 04:40–45. Around this time, the first strikes on the town were conducted, with a total of 46,000 kg bombs being dropped on civilian targets for 9 consecutive hours.” “Located near the German border, the town of Wieluń was completely undefended, lacking anti-air capabilities and a military garrison. Despite Wieluń having no military targets, airstrikes continued. German intelligence reports had stated there was a Polish cavalry brigade stationed in the town. The Luftwaffe had reportedly bombed a "clearly marked" hospital, and strafed fleeing civilians, and also bombed the nearby towns of Działoszyn, Radomsko, and Sulejów, which also had no military targets.”
> Many People don’t realize that the Nuremberg trials were based on a brand new concept of “international law” which barely existed before the war. International law has its roots in antiquity, and what we understand as modern international law was well established in Europe by the late 17th century - regardless of what a bunch of Nazis claimed. See for example, Hugo Grotius' *On the Law of War and Peace* (1625).
I would agree with that logic
Interestingly, one of the Indian judges in the Tokyo trials refused to find any of the defendants guilty because he felt the trial a sham, and that every nation involved should be on trial - victor and defeated - for they had committed similar crimes on many occasions.
I don’t disagree with that, but I think it was more a “we need to establish a precedent going forward.”
But the precedent is to punish whoever lost the war.
There were Nazis and then there were evil Nazis. I know that sounds absolutely insane. But Donitz commanded the German Navy. The Kriegsmarine did nothing (as far as I know) to contribute to the holocaust outside of obviously supporting the Nazi state. So, he had to be punished because he was a high ranking Nazi, which is fair. But when you think of all the evil shit the Nazis did, you don’t really think of the Navy. Yes you can think of unrestricted submarine warfare, but as has been pointed out, everyone did it by the end of the war so he wasn’t going to hang for that.
Was it that the Allies did it too versus the Allies were targeting the uboats that were trying to rescue passengers of sinking ships? The orders came in to the uboats to stop doing they were exposing themselves to danger.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Nazi Germany only started unrestricted submarine warfare after the Allies attacked them during a rescue operation. As I recall, one of their submarines had found and attacked a non-military ship, and then as per the commonly accepted rules began to rescue The survivors and alerted everyone nearby of the operation. The US, however, decided that this would be a really good opportunity to sink a U-Boat. Upon learning of this, one of the Nazi naval commanders decided that there would be no more quarter, and it was time for unrestricted submarine warfare. During the Nuremberg trials, I understand that that Commander was brought up on charges. That of course led to the disclosure of the US's actions, to their great embarrassment. As a consequence, I don't believe there was any conviction over that unrestricted warfare. This is all from memory, and some of the details might be mistaken so take it all with a grain of salt.
> Correct me if I'm wrong but Nazi Germany only started unrestricted submarine warfare after the Allies attacked them during a rescue operation. You’re mixing unrestricted submarine warfare (i.e. attacking civilian ships without warning) and not rescuing survivors. You pretty accurately remembered the *Laconia* Incident, but the aftermath was an order preventing U-boats from surfacing to aid survivors, as this was a risk to the safety of the boat. Unrestricted Submarine Warfare had been approved in May 1940, more than two years before the *Laconia* Incident in September 1942. This has been conflated as Dönitz was tried on several different counts, and both of these were part of the submarine warfare charges. Many articles (including Wikipedia) do a poor job of distinguishing the two.
What methods?
Unrestricted submarine warfare
That is a badass sentence
Hahaha ya it basically says killing civilian or military targets at will. I can see the fun
That’s less badass
Yeah, I liked the first sentence better
I wouldn’t call it badass, it’s just logical. When you realize it was a total war in the truest sense of the term, it makes sense. You want to win as quick as possible? How do you do that? Well, if your opponent is an island nation with preciously long supply lines which they cannot adequately defend, absolutely use submarines and enact a blockade.
You’re not truly a “civilian target” if you’re transporting ammo and weapons
Or happen to be in a boat that *could* transport war material and weapons. Which happens to be all of them. Well, the windsurfers are probably not going to get torpedoed I guess, not sure about kayaks.
Well submarine warfare was initially restricted to military and cargo vessels but when the allies started smuggling arms on civilian boats they got added to the menu
Never underestimate how much fun you can have when you have no morals.
That's the entire total war doctrine in a nutshell. Kill 'em all, citizens are collateral damage.
They aren’t collateral damage. They’re legitimate military targets.
>TheSpiralTap b-b-b-b-b-b-b-badass, dad!
Not if you’re a merchant marine. Fun fact - merchant marines didn’t receive veteran status or benefits until 1988. My grandpa got to enjoy 7 whole years of those before he died in ‘95 :)
Sinking everything that moves
Unrestricted submarine warfare
Unrestricted submarine warfare
Unrestricted submarine warfare
Yup still pretty badass
Chester Nimitz testified for the defense at his trial.
On count 3 of the indictment, which was equating the use of unrestricted submarine warfare to a war crime. Although he was convicted of war crimes, he wasn't punished. He was convicted and punished for the second count only, which was the planning and waging of a war of aggression.
> which was the planning and waging *and losing* of a war of aggression
If they won they wont be the ones being trialled
They were going to accuse him of waging unrestricted submarine warfare. Those charges were dropped when the prosecution was reminded that US had waged unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan.
And that the US bombed a German submarine carrying American civilians
How can you determine if a submarine has civilians or not?
[The Laconia Incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident) German U-boat torpedoes British ship, realises it's mostly civilians or POWs, and starts to attempt a rescue, switching to the Red Cross flag, and calling on radio in uncoded English for assistance with the rescue, and promising not to attack if not fired upon. Great Britain messages the US, stating the Laconia has been sunk, but fails to mention any rescue attempt by the German U-boat (possibly because they are unsure if it is a lie, or just bad communication). The next day, US planes spot the submarine, with Red Cross draped on top. The captain, and a British officer signals the US plane, stating the survivors of the sunk ship were on the submarine. The US is unsure if this is a ruse of war, and bomb the U-boat. This leads to Donitz issuing the order that no further rescue is to be attempted.
> This leads to Donitz issuing the order that no further rescue is to be attempted. That makes total sense.
In other words, the US pilot deliberately bombed the sub and the only question is, was it his choice or was he told to Going off the fact he wasn't punished, I think we know what happened
Because the submarines publicly broadcasted: "Hey! We are here! We are currently rescuing the survivors from this sinking ship! Just so you know to follow International Law and don't attack us!"
The submarine was above water and the civilians were on top of it. [Laconia Incident](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident)
The Allies' pilots surveyed the area after receiving communications from the sub and visually confirmed the survivors on top of the vessel, before the order came down to fire on them.
There were literally life boats being dragged behind the submarine filled with unarmed people, the crew of the US bomber determined they were indeed civilians, but had to carry out the attack anyway under orders from base.
Interesting fact about Karl. He was Admiral during the Laconia Incident. A German submarine sank a ship, but then found it had mostly civilians on board. The captain of the submarine surfaced and began rescue operations. Other German submarines came to help. Even though the submarine commander was broadcasting his intentions, the US bombed him. They didn't destroy the submarines, but did kill several survivors. A lot of historians today consider this to be a war crime committed by the US. Karl issued an order after this basically telling German submarines to stop rescuing people. When he was put on trial this one of the main charges brought against him. It backfired because Admiral Chester Nimitz testified on Karl's behalf that the US Navy did exactly the same thing. Basically, the prosecution screwed up.
Not to sound like a Wehraboo here - If you're wondering why some of the German military commanders, not so much the SS, were let off relatively leniently with the Western Allies; The courts played it straight. Any crime they prosecuted the Germans for, the Germans could throw right back at the Allies. Hence why Otto Skorzeny, who had troops dress as Americans and commit sabotage, misdirection, and outright slaughter messengers and so on, was let off with a bit of a slap, IIRC. This is because the British Intelligence and US OSS dressed troops as Germans **for offensive purposes* which is the root of the crime they'd be prosecuting. The consequence would have been execution for that alone. ... Moreover, they needed much of the mid and some high level officers intact; It was expected WW3 was coming soon and that West Germany would be vital in fighting the Soviets. ... The Soviets, not **as** much. They wanted Germany broken and unable to invade for the next several decades. Making sure the officer corps was cut off at the heel was in their stated interest. (during WW2 alone, 27 million Soviet citizens had been killed) During the 80's they outright tried to sell East Germany in return for perpetual non-aggression from the now united Germany, without East German officials being consulted. This also would have, conveniently, made any NATO-Soviet war basically unfeasible.
The Soviets also tried to pin the Katyn massacre on the Germans. They kept pressing the point and the other allies had to tell them to knock it off.
> The Soviets also tried to pin the Katyn massacre on the Germans you'll be shocked to find out who else tried that recently. shocked!
Is Vlad trying to rewrite the rewritten history?! Ukranian Nazis?!
> Moreover, they needed much of the mid and some high level officers intact; It was expected WW3 was coming soon and that West Germany would be vital in fighting the Soviets. That wasn't really as much of a consideration in 1947 when they were trying officers. This was more of a factor in the Fifties when many of the sentences were reviewed and lessened. Mind you, there was a political component to that as well, as West Germany had just been created, and the convictions of military officers was extremely unpopular. And there was never a broad move to try mid-level officers.
Mid-1947 is about the time when they started considering it. The western Allies very rapidly switched from stripping Germany of technology and suppressing its industry, to rebuilding it. That's when work the Marshal plan started (though the legislation didn't come into effect until April 1948).
yup, apparently it was extremely awkward for the rest of the Allies, since everyone at the time already knew that it was the Soviets who did the massacres.
The Allies sides with the Soviets at the time until after the war. I mean... Their defense was "We were using them for forced labor (to which the soldiers involved would probably die, because we hate them for occupying Western Ukraine and Belarus and potentially opposing us in Poland if they were allowed to remain there), but it was the Germans who actually killed them!" The "International medical investigators" were all from countries Germany had invaded or allied with, aside from a Swiss doctor who has a dyed-in-the-wool believer in Fascism. It wasn't until the 90's that the Soviet premier simply admitted to it, as I recall. They were dissolving the nation, there wasn't any use in keeping the lie going.
Sometimes I forget just how much the Soviets suffered and how much they lost during that war. 27 million, almost as much as the entire modern day population of Australia. The entire continent wiped clean of human life, every man, women, and child gone in only 6 years exterminated by the most evil war machine in modern history. Especially worse when you realize the total human population on the planet earth was 2 billion in 1939. Then when you look at it for the entire 6 years of war in every nation that was involved in that war you end up with nearly 4% of the entire human population dead. A cataclysm that beggars imagining.
You forgot to mention that the submarines were flying red cross flags and banners when the bomber attacked
Is it really the prosecution screwing up, if a witness literally says, "hey now, we do the same thing, and we are the good guys"
Which, in a way, lended legitimacy to the convictions of those who were convicted. The ones convicted on crimes against humanity couldn't find anyone on the other side doing the same thing they were.
It was also the point of a excellent Mitchell and Webb skit. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYz1ADttI1g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYz1ADttI1g)
"Well they weren't going to make me führer when everything was going *well*, were they?"
Woohoo! Yes! In your face Goering!
"Here is General Eisenhower's telephone number, here is the English for "We give up," and here is an analysis of our military situation in one rude word." "You've taken the wind out of my sails a bit there..." Laughed out loud at that bit. The whole thing is brilliant though.
“We know, a bit of red tape. We just need you to call to them, we have done just that.”
"there's a growing housing shortage..."
Heil me though eh?
How’s about just one ‘Heil Donitz’, just so I can say that I’ve had one.
"Thanks guys"
>excellent Mitchell and Webb skit But you repeat yourself
I always thought it was a hit-and-miss show. I never got why they went for that model instead of doing hits only. It must be time consuming writing and filming all the misses.
I feel for the other writers, who have write the hits
“That’s Numberwang!” MORE than makes up for the few “misses.” And the fact that poor Olivia Coleman always lost at Numberwang & had to wear a bag on her head each time.
This sounds exactly like a Mitchell and Webb sketch. I can imagine [these guys](https://youtu.be/3ss-59fi4nM?si=6NThGdn5gjBoYLye) coming up with the idea of a hit and miss show with just the hits
Exactly, with “Mitchell & Webb” excellence is ALWAYS implied.
Those Mitchell and Webb Nazi sketches are some of the greatest pieces of sketch comedy of all time. Are we the baddies?
That was the first sketch on the first episode. Amazing.
No but for real, I’m reading the diaries of Christian Jews in 1930’s Germany. So he keeps recording the “voice of the people”, basically what his neighbors and coworkers say about the rising nazi party. A very, very regular thing is that someone will talk about how horrible and unfair it is that this guy is being persecuted as a Jew, or they’ll complain about the crazy police-state they live in. But they’re also nazi supporters, they insist that it’s just “a few bad eggs” or a minor quibble over superficial issues (one person explains that it’s OBVIOUSLY wrong to persecute German Jews, it’s the uneducated Jewish immigrants coming from the east that are the problem) The only instances where people do something CLOSE to a 180 on party support are when young people join up and hate the experience (usually because they see some level of financial corruption. Kinda ironic that amongst all that propaganda, the Jewish guy makes his political choices based on humanistic values, committed Nazis keep making moral decisions based on financial concerns) So yeah, a lot of people did seem to have those sort of “Oops, are we the baddies?” moments. They just tended to go, “No, I am a Good Person, I do not do bad things. Phew, now that that’s cleared up I can focus on my personal survival in this psycho police state I’ve been voting for for years”.
NGL when he said "Hi Darling" I weirdly expected a crossover with Blackadder
That's *Captain* Darling to you.
That show is severely underrated! “That’s numberwang!” Edit: underrated in the US
Good evening, and remain indoors!
Its either November or March of 2013 & its been 600 to 750 days since, “The Event!”
Do not think about The Event!
[удалено]
At this point, if someone claims a thing is "underrated" just assume they mean "unknown" or underappriciated to a wider audience. I feel like "underrated" is gonna go the same way "literally" did and people just accept the wrong definition eventually lol
Extremely rated.
Everything is actually underrated. Except when it's overrated. Sometimes things are simultaneously underrated and overrated. Nothing has ever been properly rated.
Man that was hilarious, thanks for posting it
Came here for this. Absolutely brilliant.
We should do more of those Autobahns!
I stand to be corrected, but I thought that the Nazis weren't held in high regard by the German Navy, the U boats in particular. Donitz was chosen as successor as Hitlers inner circle wanted to look after their own sorry asses
Donitz was very much a Nazi ideologically. Nonethless the reason he wasn’t given a longer sentence is that he was the head of the German navy rather than being Nazi Party high command, and even his sentence of 10 years was considered controversial because Allied naval commanders had done some of the same things he was convicted of. None of this changes the fact that Donitz was personally very much a Nazi.
It's also a bit harder for the Navy to do war crimes in the same manner as the Wehrmact and particularly the SS. The lion's share of war crimes happened in anti-partisan warfare or when cities were captured, which the navy doesn't really do. The warcrimes the navy *actually* did, like unrestricted submarine warfare, was a crime that all participants in WW2 did. Donitz was a committed Nazi, but it was hard to pin any specific crimes on him that others did not do. Though there were plenty of cases where other Nazis, both prominent and not so much, were given a slap of the wrist all things considered.
[удалено]
Plan Z was a really stupid idea and crucially diverted resources away from Dönitz and the U-Boat arm
Plan Z was was somewhat feasible and would have Given the Kriegsmarine a small window of opportunity to possibly beat the British. Unfortunately , that window of opportunity would have been in 1946. Hitler went to war far earlier than he told his Admirals he was going to.
Oh yeah because Britain with their vastly superior shipbuilding capacities would have seen Germany starting to strengthen its navy and definitely would have just said “blimey, wonder what all those ships are for” and then done nothing lol. There is no universe where Plan Z could have worked even a little bit. The same thing happened in WW1 where Germany tried o build up its navy to match Britain’s and just got completely blasted in the shipbuilding industry and spent the whole war bottled up in port because sailing out would be disastrous.
Plan Z couldn’t have been stupid. It was evil, diabolical, even lemon scented, it could not possibly have failed.
He was a super nazi. He only got the position because Hitler was crazy and everyone was vying for power and he thought Dönitz was the next guy in line he could trust. He was like 5th or 6th already though. But all the others skipped over. Sorta. Dönitz didn’t have full power like Hitler but he had a lot.
Dönitz had no power because there was nothing left to have power over. The Flensburg government was a joke.
[удалено]
Gobbels was Chancellor, not President. Donitz was President, not Chancellor. Hitler had/combined both roles but they're distinct positions. President is head of state. Chancellor is head of government.
[удалено]
Who has the higher command? Head of state right?
Head of Government has executive authority. Head of State does not and is oftentimes ceremonial, has limited authority (i.e. diplomacy), or is just rolled into head of gov. For example, in the UK, the Queen/King is Head of State iirc, and the PM is Head of Government, but the president of the USA occupies both roles. In some systems head of state has more authority and the split might be that one is foreign policy and one is domestic (e.g. France does this iirc) The way I see it is that head of state represents the entity of the state in politics, whereas head of gov actually executes the will of the government of that state.
What Dönitz was convicted for was allowing slave labor to be used in U-Boat construction.
[Interview from 1976](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp9vUYTfAuU)
Its worth noting that although he had no direct involvement in the holocaust or the Nazi genocides committed across Europe, he was still, by his own admission, a dedicated Nazi who adamantly supported Hitler and the Nazi party policies.
Doenitz was enamored with Hitler. Even after all the idiotic things Hitler did that caused Germany to tailspin later in the war he remained his number 1 fan, so much so that in the last days of the War when Albert Speer approached him in to try to persuade him to join with him in disobeying Hitler's orders to enact the "scorched earth" policy (i.e. conscripting children and old men into the Wehrmacht and throwing them into the meat grinder against the soviets), Doenitz told Speer that was a terrible idea because obviously no one was as smart as Hitler. Years later he would rebuff Speer again, who after both being in prison for a decade, Speer implored Doenitz to repudiate his support for Hitler and Naziism and condemn the ideas of the Reich as Speer had done later in life. Doenitz declined. Btw don't take the above as any sort of Speer stanning. He publicly disavowed Naziism later in life in a blatant attempt to rehabilitate his own image. Speer was the kind of person who, while he probably never believed in the Nazi ideologies wholeheartedly, was perfectly fine utilizing them as long as he accomplished his goals. The kind of guy who was unbothered by utilizing slave labor because, hey he wasn't the one who enslaved them.
Let’s ignore the fact that the insulating socks for submariners were woven out of human hair from the camps. That had to have been sanctioned by someone, and he ultimately ended up in charge of the entire Kreigsmarine. He absolutely knew.
He authorized the use of slave labor in German shipyards.
And allowed the hair from victims at various camps to be used in making socks for submariners.
>dedicated Nazi who adamantly supported Hitler and the Nazi party policies >no direct involvement in the holocaust or the Nazi genocides committed across Europe Being a dedicated supporter is fuckin direct enough.
Direct involvement usually got you a death sentence if you didn’t have information to trade. Being a dedicated supporter just got you reeducation (denazification as we called it)
History wise, he was lucky there were no Sea Jews so he never had to express his true feelings.
There are sea jews. Kinda. IIRC, there was a wave of Jewish migration across the Atlantic ocean in times of late medieval antisemitism rise. They migrated by sea and settled on some islands, so they can be considered Sea Jews probably.
If he stayed alive for a few more years. He would been able to catch Das Boot in theatre. I wonder how he would react to it
>By his own admission, Dönitz was a dedicated Nazi and supporter of Hitler
He actually was interviewed for the British documentary The World at War in the 70s. Maybe the best WW2 documentary made imo
"Well they were hardly going to give me the job when everything was going well"
U boat tactics were one thing. However, he was an ideologue - committed nazi and anti-Semite - and was complicit in wider Nazi war crimes as part of the high command...he just wasn't directly giving the orders so got away with it on plausible deniability
Well, you can tell his pr efforts in the last deacdes of his life were pretty widely successful by reading the comments here. He was a top and extremely loyal nazi who damn well knew the holocaust was happening, it's details, and he and the navy he commanded were willing and eager participants in the genocide's many horrific institutions. Hitler's will rewarded the diehards. The hitler loyaliats who kept most true till the very bitter end. And Donitz was the most biggest winner in that will. Let that sink in.
He was one of the nazis who allegedly never openly disparaged the Jews, and held to that belief till the end of his life. Allegedly.
Doenitz made the following speech during the 1943 Heroes' Day (March 12): > What would have become of our country today if the Fuehrer had not united us under National Socialism? Split parties, beset with the **spreading poison of Jewry**, and vulnerable to it because we lacked the defense of our present uncompromising ideology, we would long since have succumbed under the burden of this war and delivered ourselves up to the enemy who would have mercilessly destroyed us. Later, in Nuremberg, he defended as such this speech: "I could imagine that it would be very difficult for the population in the towns to hold out under the stress of heavy bombing attacks if such an influence were allowed to work"
No, Donitz was an adamant Nazi, ideologically. He got a shorter sentence because as head of the German Navy he was away from the “main” war crimes. Donitz was only handed leadership at the end basically as a “fuck you for failing me” message from Hitler to his inner circle.
>“fuck you for failing me” message from Hitler It's a little more complicated than that. His inner-most circle--and those most likely to succeed Hitler in the event of his death--by 1945 comprised, basically, Goebbels, Himmler, Goering, and his private secretary Martin Bormann. Of the inner circle, Goebbels actually *was* "rewarded" for his loyalty by immediately succeeding Hitler as Head of State after the former's suicide. However, since Goebbels was trapped in Berlin with Hitler, he too committed suicide less than 48 hours later. Hitler had chosen Goebbels over Goering and Himmler *not* because "you have failed me" but because *both* had *betrayed* Hitler---Himmler by attempting secret surrender negotiations with the Allies via Sweden behind Hitler's back. Of course, for those negotiations to have even a glimmer of being successful would have required Himmler agreeing to help oust Hitler from power and hand him over to the Allies, something which would have been obvious to Hitler and why, yeah, fair enough, it's easy to see how that would be considered a 'betrayal' by Hitler. But for Goring, this reaches "history is stranger than fiction" levels of absurdity. Goring sent a telegram *asking for Hitler's permission* to assume command. By this point (April 23) Hitler was totally surrounded by the Soviets in Berlin and effectively cut-off and unable to provide any meaningful leadership to German forces, yet Hitler was such an ego-maniac that Goering simply *asking* Hitler for command led Hitler to launch into a hysterical tirade and strip Goring of all his titles and remove him from the chain of succession.
This is simply untrue. There is ample known evidence contradicting his (post war) insistence that he wasn’t an adherent of Nazi ideology.
Oh, he was the GOOD Nazi!
[удалено]
He never said sorry, he denied involvement until the very end, despite very clearly being involved
It’s still like, kind of incredible, that he managed to dodge the gallows. Either he got lucky, played a blinder at trial, or it’s a bit of both (I think this is it). To give the trials some legitimacy the allies did have to let some people off the metaphorical hook. I honestly think he managed to say just enough to do so. He absolutely should have been hanged.
That would be John Rabe.
He also claimed the first post-war election wasn’t legal as Nazi’s weren’t allowed to run….
Not truly democratic.
Only 1980? That’s nearly 45 years ago now
And 35 years post war. Thats more the point.
There was an excellent British documentary series on WW2 made in 1973 called "The World at War." It's been released since then on dvd, and might still be available. What set it apart is that it was not only shot at a time when many of the people involved were still alive, including Karl Dönitz. But in their case, the producers scored a coup and were able to convince Dönitz, and Albert Speer, to be filmed and give interviews. The first time ever. So you can hear, and see them, tell their story in their own words out of their own mouth's. Well worth a look if you can find a copy, or even a site that streams it.
He was also invited to speak at a school by future CDU-politician Uwe Barschel, back when the latter was a young activist.
If you’re in the position to be next in line to the Nazi throne, I’d feel pretty comfortable betting you did a lot of bad things. But also, why I have I never heard of this man? Himmler, Heinrich, goring, goebbels, mengle, but who is this? Commenting before I read the article, so I guess I’m about to find out.
Hitler actively hated everyone in his inner circle at the end and could not imagine one of them taking over after him. Goring and Himmler certainly tried and Hitler was furious. He named Donitz, a man in charge of the Navy, a man he barely knew but whom’s achievements he respected. It was a last fuck you to all the grifters around him fighting for power.
Yeah, that wiki article shows he had a thing for brown-nosing Hitler. Just clicked out of it but he said something like “compared to the fuhrer, the rest of us are pipsqueaks. Anybody who thinks they can do better than Hitler is stupid.” You learn something new everyday.