The Karl Dönitz scandal

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
sfivdf21
Member
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:58 am

The Karl Dönitz scandal

Postby sfivdf21 » 8 months 2 weeks ago (Thu Oct 01, 2020 5:07 pm)

Hello everyone, a while time ago I read somewhere (I don't remember which one it was) that the Grand Admiral, legal successor to the Führer Adolf Hitler and last legitimate head of state of Germany Karl Dönitz was invited to give a lecture on the Third Reich in the Otto Hahn Gymnasium (located in the town of Geesthacht, Schleswig-Holstein, northern Germany) on January 22, 1963, in which the German students were delighted with Dönitz. That produced a great international political and mediatical scandal that ended with the suicide of the director of the Gymnasium, Georg Rühsen.
But the information that I read did not specify what specific topics about the Third Reich was covered by the Dönitz' lecture, so I have no more knowledge about it.
But if the affair ended with a great international political and mediatical scandal and a fierce campaign of harassment and destabilization that went to the extreme that the director of the Gymnasium committed suicide (or who knows, perhaps it was a Rudolf Hess-style "suicide", but as I said before I am not aware of it) it is evident that Dönitz must have made uncomfortable and dangerous statements for the postwar pseudo-historiography of the Jewish-Allied establishment and their vassal authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Did Dönitz make a positive assessment of Adolf Hitler and Nationalsocialism?
Did Dönitz question and or/debunk the "Holocaust" Myth?
Did Dönitz mention Hitler's peace offers and the Western Allies' refusal to accept it and/or the warmongering plans of the international Jewry to provoke a war against Germany in order to destroy it?
Did Dönitz show state documents (to which as commander-in-chief of the Kriegsmarine and Hitler's legal successor he surely had access) that debunk the "German Guilt" Myth?
Did Dönitz debunk and expose all the lies and manipulations of the Nuremberg show trials now that he was a free man and no longer had to fear for his life depending on what statements he made?
I personally would not rule it out, because many of the things that we know today, in 1963 were totally censored and without access to the general public and historians (especially in the occupied Germany).

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3778
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: The Karl Dönitz scandal

Postby Hektor » 8 months 2 weeks ago (Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:24 pm)

Could you perhaps first stipulate what sources you do have for the incident/affair you are pertaining to?

According to wiki (on Uwe Barschel)
In 1963, Barschel was among a group of Geesthacht students who attended a school assembly which featured former admiral and convicted war criminal Karl Dönitz, speaking at the invitation of a pro-Nazi history teacher. The event, during which Dönitz gave an apologia for Nazi ideology with no rebuttal from students and staff, caused a furore when it was reported by the German and international press.[1] Seventeen years later, as Schleswig-Holstein's minister of the interior, Barschel attended Dönitz's funeral.

It seems that Barschel was actually the organiser of the event, since it was him as the "school speaker" that invited Karl Doenitz.


Uwe Barschel later "committed suicide" - His family does however insist that he was actually murdered.

sfivdf21
Member
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:58 am

Re: The Karl Dönitz scandal

Postby sfivdf21 » 8 months 1 week ago (Fri Oct 02, 2020 10:43 am)

Hektor wrote:Could you perhaps first stipulate what sources you do have for the incident/affair you are pertaining to?

According to wiki (on Uwe Barschel)
In 1963, Barschel was among a group of Geesthacht students who attended a school assembly which featured former admiral and convicted war criminal Karl Dönitz, speaking at the invitation of a pro-Nazi history teacher. The event, during which Dönitz gave an apologia for Nazi ideology with no rebuttal from students and staff, caused a furore when it was reported by the German and international press.[1] Seventeen years later, as Schleswig-Holstein's minister of the interior, Barschel attended Dönitz's funeral.

It seems that Barschel was actually the organiser of the event, since it was him as the "school speaker" that invited Karl Doenitz.


Uwe Barschel later "committed suicide" - His family does however insist that he was actually murdered.


According to the mentioned information it seems clear that Karl Dönitz glorified Nationalsocialism, but what it does not mention is whether or not he made revisionist statements regarding the Holocaust (considering that the conference was called "January 30 and its consequences" I am sure that at some point this topic was addressed). The testimony of Karl Dönitz regarding the issue of the Holocaust and the Third Reich has always seemed very contradictory and ambivalent to me.

I have already said that I don't remember the source from where I read it, but now doing a quick search I have found information about it in the German-speaking Metapedia and Wikipedia.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto-Hahn ... Geesthacht) (view the section "Dönitz-Affäre")

https://de.metapedia.org/wiki/D%C3%B6nitz-Aff%C3%A4re

It says that Uwe Barschel, the then student representative of the Otto-Hahn-Gymnasium and later Prime Minister of Schleswig-Holstein, invited the Großadmiral and successor of Adolf Hitler, Karl Dönitz, on January 22, 1963 at the suggestion of his history teacher and CDU regional politician Heinrich Kock, who was sympathetic to Nationalsocialism (I suppose this person is the "pro-Nazi history teacher" referred to in your answer excerpt) to give a lecture for the Otto-Hahn-Gymnasium students on the topic of "the January 30, 1933 and its consequences."

The only journalist present, the local editor of Geesthacht Karl Mührl, who knew Dönitz and Kock, reported on a special page of the Bergedorfer Zeitung about the Dönitz' lecture: “We are feeling: Karl Dönitz was delighted with these youth. They had a clear set of questions at hand. And the Großadmiral did not apologize [for his role in the Third Reich]. His responses were clear and objective. This event lasted exactly one hour and 30 minutes, which was certainly a special experience for the teachers present at the elementary school, but for the students it was definitely a history lesson of the highest level.

This process sparked a tangible scandal: FRG and international Media outlets such as Die Zeit, Der Spiegel and Le Monde (this French newspaper said that the former Großadmiral Dönitz glorified Hitler's policy, although to my knowledge it did not specify what specific policies of the Führer had Dönitz glorified) reported on the matter. Dönitz' militaristic statements glorifying Nationalsocialism led to a international political scandal. The Otto-Hahn-Gymnasium director Georg Rühsen (born in 1906) finally committed suicide by not being able to withstand the enormous political and mediatical pressure of the merciless campaign of harassment and demolition that was launched against him.

I didn't know that Barschel also committed suicide, but if he attended the funeral of Karl Dönitz (who died in 1980) and later ruled Schleswig-Holstein it's clear that he did so long after the Dönitz scandal of 1963 and that no retaliation was taken against him but against Rühsen. I wonder, why retaliation was taken against Rühsen and not against Dönitz (who was the one who made statements that glorified the Nationalsocialism? There is something extremely strange to me in this story of the Dönitz-Affäre.

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 720
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: The Karl Dönitz scandal

Postby HMSendeavour » 8 months 1 week ago (Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:20 am)

Karl Dönitz was an unrepentant National Socialist, loyal to the Führer, Adolf Hitler, to the very end.

"What would have become of our country today, if the Fuehrer had not united us under National Socialism? Divided along party lines, beset with the spreading poison of Jewry and vulnerable to it, because we lacked the defense of our present uncompromising ideology, we would have long since succumbed under the burden of this war and delivered ourselves to the enemy who would have mercilessly destroyed us"
Karl Dönitz,
12 March, 1944


Whitney R. Harris, Tyranny on Trial: The Trial of the Major German War Criminals at the End of World War II at Nuremberg, Germany, 1945–1946 (Southern Methodist University Press, 1999), Pp. 289


Image
Last edited by HMSendeavour on Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference.

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 720
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: The Karl Dönitz scandal

Postby HMSendeavour » 8 months 1 week ago (Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:27 am)

I you want to know more about Dönitz, you should read the chapter on him in Kerry Bolton's biography of Francis Parker Yockey:

Image
Download the book here: http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=F0CE5AA4B7BD665C19126E8B034C4CA6
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference.

User avatar
Revision
Member
Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2020 2:09 pm
Contact:

Re: The Karl Dönitz scandal

Postby Revision » 8 months 1 week ago (Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:54 am)

I have not researched this subject further, but I remembered that Doenitz said this in his interview for the documentary "The Memory of Justice" (1976): https://youtu.be/dp9vUYTfAuU?t=277

Doenitz: "Today I know far more about him than I knew then. Then, I only saw one side of his personality. And the other side, the dark side..."

Interviewer: "If by the dark side, you mean the concenration camps, Herr Grossadmiral, in answer to the British prosecutors's question in Nuremberg whether you knew about the camps, you said: 'Yes, I have never denied it.'"

Doenitz: "Yes."

Interviewer: "You still don't deny it?"

Doenitz: "No."

Interviewer: "Would you say that was one of Hitler's dark sides?"

Doenitz: "That is the question. But if he set up concenration camps, one can, in wartime, take the view that during wartime that those convicts ought to be put to work, you understand, and kept in one place together. These are all things whose full significanse could not be anticipated then. Especially as we knew absolutely nothing about the conditions in the camps."


It is important to note that he of cource doesn't deny the existence of the concenration camps, but he seems to deny his knowledge of the alleged atrocities.

sfivdf21
Member
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:58 am

Re: The Karl Dönitz scandal

Postby sfivdf21 » 8 months 1 week ago (Fri Oct 02, 2020 12:26 pm)

HMSendeavour wrote:Karl Dönitz was an unrepentant National Socialist, loyal to the Führer, Adolf Hitler, to the very end.

"What would have become of our country today, if the Fuehrer had not united us under National Socialism? Divided along party lines, beset with the spreading poison of Jewry and vulnerable to it, because we lacked the defense of our present uncompromising ideology, we would have long since succumbed under the burden of this war and delivered ourselves to the enemy who would have mercilessly destroyed us"
Karl Dönitz,
12 March, 1944


Whitney R. Harris, Tyranny on Trial: The Trial of the Major German War Criminals at the End of World War II at Nuremberg, Germany, 1945–1946 (Southern Methodist University Press, 1999), Pp. 289


Image


It is true that Karl Dönitz was a fervent Nationalsocialist (for something Adolf Hitler appointed him successor as Germany's head of state), but what is contradictory and ambivalent in Dönitz are his views after the war. Well, on the one hand, he continued to praise the Nationalsocialist ideology (in fact, in his controversial lecture which the debate in this thread deals with, he was accused of apologizing to Nationalsocialism and praising Hitler's policies), he never showed remorse for his role in the Second World War and during his captivity he rejected the attempts of the traitor Speer to persuade him to end his devotion to Hitler and "accept responsibility for the mistakes that the German government had made." But on the other hand, at the infamous Allied court in Nuremberg, he presented himself as an apolitical military commander who fell into "bad companies" In his memoirs Dönitz called the Nationalsocialist Regime a product of his time, but argued again that he was not a politician and therefore was not morally responsible for many of the regime's alleged "crimes" (that is, he did not question the myth of the "Holocaust"). He also criticized the dictatorship as a fundamentally flawed form of government and blamed it for many of the alleged shortcomings of the Third Reich era. Some time ago I saw a video on YouTube (which has already been censored and unfortunately I have not been able to find it anywhere else) about an interview with Karl Dönitz and Albert Speer from the year 1973 (I think it is from the documentary "The World at War" although I am not sure) in which neither of them debunk the anti-German narrative of the "Holocaust" (of the traitor, coward and opportunist of Speer I expected it but of Dönitz who allegedly remained a loyal Nationalsocialist until the end of his life I did not expect it). That is why for me the Dönitz' testimony is so contradictory and ambivalent, I am quite confused about it. I think it would be interesting if some revisionist historian wrote a book that clarifies once and for all Karl Dönitz' views on the "Holocaust". If you know any books about it please recommend it to me, I would really appreciate it.

sfivdf21
Member
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:58 am

Re: The Karl Dönitz scandal

Postby sfivdf21 » 8 months 1 week ago (Fri Oct 02, 2020 12:28 pm)

HMSendeavour wrote:I you want to know more about Dönitz, you should read the chapter on him in Kerry Bolton's biography of Francis Parker Yockey:

Image
Download the book here: http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=F0CE5AA4B7BD665C19126E8B034C4CA6


Okay, thank you very much for the recommendation, I will read it.

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 720
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: The Karl Dönitz scandal

Postby HMSendeavour » 8 months 1 week ago (Fri Oct 02, 2020 12:46 pm)

sfivdf21 wrote:It is true that Karl Dönitz was a fervent Nationalsocialist (for something Adolf Hitler appointed him successor as Germany's head of state), but what is contradictory and ambivalent in Dönitz are his views after the war. Well, on the one hand, he continued to praise the Nationalsocialist ideology (in fact, in his controversial lecture which the debate in this thread deals with, he was accused of apologizing to Nationalsocialism and praising Hitler's policies), he never showed remorse for his role in the Second World War and during his captivity he rejected the attempts of the traitor Speer to persuade him to end his devotion to Hitler and "accept responsibility for the mistakes that the German government had made." But on the other hand, at the infamous Allied court in Nuremberg, he presented himself as an apolitical military commander who fell into "bad companies" In his memoirs Dönitz called the Nationalsocialist Regime a product of his time, but argued again that he was not a politician and therefore was not morally responsible for many of the regime's alleged "crimes" (that is, he did not question the myth of the "Holocaust"). He also criticized the dictatorship as a fundamentally flawed form of government and blamed it for many of the alleged shortcomings of the Third Reich era. Some time ago I saw a video on YouTube (which has already been censored and unfortunately I have not been able to find it anywhere else) about an interview with Karl Dönitz and Albert Speer from the year 1973 (I think it is from the documentary "The World at War" although I am not sure) in which neither of them debunk the anti-German narrative of the "Holocaust" (of the traitor, coward and opportunist of Speer I expected it but of Dönitz who allegedly remained a loyal Nationalsocialist until the end of his life I did not expect it). That is why for me the Dönitz' testimony is so contradictory and ambivalent, I am quite confused about it. I think it would be interesting if some revisionist historian wrote a book that clarifies once and for all Karl Dönitz' views on the "Holocaust". If you know any books about it please recommend it to me, I would really appreciate it.


There's nothing contradictory about what Dönitz had said. He was right about not having knowledge about some alleged Holocaust - because it never occurred - so there was no way he could know about something that didn't happen and was mythologised after the war at Nuremberg.

This book would be worth the read:

Image
Doenitz at Nuremberg, a Reappraisal: War Crimes and the Military Professional
PDF: http://web.archive.org/web/202007021412 ... raisal.pdf or http://web.archive.org/web/202007021412 ... raisal.pdf or http://web.archive.org/web/202007021407 ... raisal.pdf
TXT: http://archive.fo/VLDf2 or http://web.archive.org/web/2020/https:/ ... g/cWO1GAzc
See the post from Lamprecht here: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11053&p=97236#p97236

Do you have a source for where Speer attempted to persuade Dönitz? And a source for the quote you used?

Anyway.

I will also say that the comments, or rather lack thereof made by Dönitz after the war is in fact stunning proof of his loyalty to Hitler. If Dönitz were so inclined he easily could've taken the route of Albert Speer. Denounce everything and everyone while portraying himself as some kind of ignorant man who was "caught up" in the moment, or in the "spell" of the evil Adolf Hitler. Blah blah.

The fact that Dönitz hardly ever made comments at all, or simply took a neutral line shows us that he wasn't, at the least, willing to show remorse, because he didn't feel he'd done anything wrong or believed anything wrong. And rightly so. When he did comment on that period of his life, it caused him great controversy as you well know. If he wished to avoid this he surely could have, and it must be kept in mind that Dönitz's loyalty or adherence to National Socialism cannot be equated with whether or not he wanted to fight against the Holocaust narrative. He was an old man who'd been wrongly sentenced for crimes of which he was either not guilty, or simply weren't crimes at all.

We could hardly expect a man in his 70s late 80s to take on the Holocaust narrative. He died in 1980 after all, and in the early 1960s even today, functionaries were being tried and convicted, even committing "suicide" for being involved in the Holocaust. If I were Dönitz, I wouldn't want to have anything more to do with any of it either. I'd want to live the rest of my life in peace, undisturbed in my personal politics by bloodthirsty Jews and their Goyim stooges.

Dönitz did what he could to save himself, because he was innocent, and he managed to do all that without conceding anything to the Allied bullies at Nuremberg. That must've been hard enough when he could've ended up in a noose himself. Yet he avoided the noose and avoided selling out his comrades or Adolf Hitler. Does that seem like the actions of a man who was ambivalent? To me, I don't think so.
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3778
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: The Karl Dönitz scandal

Postby Hektor » 8 months 1 week ago (Fri Oct 02, 2020 5:08 pm)

sfivdf21 wrote:....
According to the mentioned information it seems clear that Karl Dönitz glorified Nationalsocialism, but what it does not mention is whether or not he made revisionist statements regarding the Holocaust (considering that the conference was called "January 30 and its consequences" I am sure that at some point this topic was addressed). The testimony of Karl Dönitz regarding the issue of the Holocaust and the Third Reich has always seemed very contradictory and ambivalent to me.

Well, doesn't that depend on what one considers "glorification"?

Doenitz may just have given a sober account of NS and Germany at the time. To any rabid Antifascist or cuckservative figure that may of course sound like "glorification" then.


sfivdf21 wrote:....
I have already said that I don't remember the source from where I read it, but now doing a quick search I have found information about it in the German-speaking Metapedia and Wikipedia.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto-Hahn ... Geesthacht) (view the section "Dönitz-Affäre")
https://de.metapedia.org/wiki/D%C3%B6nitz-Aff%C3%A4re
It says that Uwe Barschel, the then student representative of the Otto-Hahn-Gymnasium and later Prime Minister of Schleswig-Holstein, invited the Großadmiral and successor of Adolf Hitler, Karl Dönitz, on January 22, 1963 at the suggestion of his history teacher and CDU regional politician Heinrich Kock, who was sympathetic to Nationalsocialism (I suppose this person is the "pro-Nazi history teacher" referred to in your answer excerpt) to give a lecture for the Otto-Hahn-Gymnasium students on the topic of "the January 30, 1933 and its consequences."

The only journalist present, the local editor of Geesthacht Karl Mührl, who knew Dönitz and Kock, reported on a special page of the Bergedorfer Zeitung about the Dönitz' lecture: “We are feeling: Karl Dönitz was delighted with these youth. They had a clear set of questions at hand. And the Großadmiral did not apologize [for his role in the Third Reich]. His responses were clear and objective. This event lasted exactly one hour and 30 minutes, which was certainly a special experience for the teachers present at the elementary school, but for the students it was definitely a history lesson of the highest level.

This process sparked a tangible scandal: FRG and international Media outlets such as Die Zeit, Der Spiegel and Le Monde (this French newspaper said that the former Großadmiral Dönitz glorified Hitler's policy, although to my knowledge it did not specify what specific policies of the Führer had Dönitz glorified) reported on the matter. Dönitz' militaristic statements glorifying Nationalsocialism led to a international political scandal. The Otto-Hahn-Gymnasium director Georg Rühsen (born in 1906) finally committed suicide by not being able to withstand the enormous political and mediatical pressure of the merciless campaign of harassment and demolition that was launched against him.

I didn't know that Barschel also committed suicide, but if he attended the funeral of Karl Dönitz (who died in 1980) and later ruled Schleswig-Holstein it's clear that he did so long after the Dönitz scandal of 1963 and that no retaliation was taken against him but against Rühsen. I wonder, why retaliation was taken against Rühsen and not against Dönitz (who was the one who made statements that glorified the Nationalsocialism? There is something extremely strange to me in this story of the Dönitz-Affäre.

My guess is this was the first time Uwe Barschel made the News. I think this was at a gymnasium (preparatory to university) and not an elementary school.

As said. I think Doenitz tried to give a fair account of National-Socialism and his role in that era. I wonder if there are any recordings of that speech. Or on what the media base their hate-campaign on? The suicide of the rector is regrettable, but then I think you need to have a thick skin for such a position anyway. He could have kept calm and replied that he would give people a chance to give first hand accounts. Well, for some reasons those people that were in responsible positions in the NS-era are not allowed to openly give the point of view on things and share their experiences freely. What do the detractors have to hide?

Uwe Barschel indeed still made career afterwards, but possibly it was simply overlooked given his age. And who can blame a teenager for inviting a historical figure, which Doenitz undoubtly was, to his school. I'm sure American veterans were also invited to schools then. The Barschel affair is a subject on its own. And whether he indeed committed suicide is in dispute and that for good reason.

As far as the attack on Ruehsen is concerned - Without knowing the details I think they may have used more leverage than just the Doenitz stuff - Me thinks that some circles tried to make an example of him. As a warning to other rectors not to allow similar presentations by pre-1945 at their schools. You know, the kids could get the "wrong idea" about German history from them. Rather leave this to the experts from the IfZ or other institutions.

sfivdf21
Member
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:58 am

Re: The Karl Dönitz scandal

Postby sfivdf21 » 8 months 1 week ago (Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:44 pm)

HMSendeavour wrote:
sfivdf21 wrote:It is true that Karl Dönitz was a fervent Nationalsocialist (for something Adolf Hitler appointed him successor as Germany's head of state), but what is contradictory and ambivalent in Dönitz are his views after the war. Well, on the one hand, he continued to praise the Nationalsocialist ideology (in fact, in his controversial lecture which the debate in this thread deals with, he was accused of apologizing to Nationalsocialism and praising Hitler's policies), he never showed remorse for his role in the Second World War and during his captivity he rejected the attempts of the traitor Speer to persuade him to end his devotion to Hitler and "accept responsibility for the mistakes that the German government had made." But on the other hand, at the infamous Allied court in Nuremberg, he presented himself as an apolitical military commander who fell into "bad companies" In his memoirs Dönitz called the Nationalsocialist Regime a product of his time, but argued again that he was not a politician and therefore was not morally responsible for many of the regime's alleged "crimes" (that is, he did not question the myth of the "Holocaust"). He also criticized the dictatorship as a fundamentally flawed form of government and blamed it for many of the alleged shortcomings of the Third Reich era. Some time ago I saw a video on YouTube (which has already been censored and unfortunately I have not been able to find it anywhere else) about an interview with Karl Dönitz and Albert Speer from the year 1973 (I think it is from the documentary "The World at War" although I am not sure) in which neither of them debunk the anti-German narrative of the "Holocaust" (of the traitor, coward and opportunist of Speer I expected it but of Dönitz who allegedly remained a loyal Nationalsocialist until the end of his life I did not expect it). That is why for me the Dönitz' testimony is so contradictory and ambivalent, I am quite confused about it. I think it would be interesting if some revisionist historian wrote a book that clarifies once and for all Karl Dönitz' views on the "Holocaust". If you know any books about it please recommend it to me, I would really appreciate it.


There's nothing contradictory about what Dönitz had said. He was right about not having knowledge about some alleged Holocaust - because it never occurred - so there was no way he could know about something that didn't happen and was mythologised after the war at Nuremberg.

This book would be worth the read:

Image
Doenitz at Nuremberg, a Reappraisal: War Crimes and the Military Professional
PDF: http://web.archive.org/web/202007021412 ... raisal.pdf or http://web.archive.org/web/202007021412 ... raisal.pdf or http://web.archive.org/web/202007021407 ... raisal.pdf
TXT: http://archive.fo/VLDf2 or http://web.archive.org/web/2020/https:/ ... g/cWO1GAzc
See the post from Lamprecht here: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11053&p=97236#p97236

Do you have a source for where Speer attempted to persuade Dönitz? And a source for the quote you used?

Anyway.

I will also say that the comments, or rather lack thereof made by Dönitz after the war is in fact stunning proof of his loyalty to Hitler. If Dönitz were so inclined he easily could've taken the route of Albert Speer. Denounce everything and everyone while portraying himself as some kind of ignorant man who was "caught up" in the moment, or in the "spell" of the evil Adolf Hitler. Blah blah.

The fact that Dönitz hardly ever made comments at all, or simply took a neutral line shows us that he wasn't, at the least, willing to show remorse, because he didn't feel he'd done anything wrong or believed anything wrong. And rightly so. When he did comment on that period of his life, it caused him great controversy as you well know. If he wished to avoid this he surely could have, and it must be kept in mind that Dönitz's loyalty or adherence to National Socialism cannot be equated with whether or not he wanted to fight against the Holocaust narrative. He was an old man who'd been wrongly sentenced for crimes of which he was either not guilty, or simply weren't crimes at all.

We could hardly expect a man in his 70s late 80s to take on the Holocaust narrative. He died in 1980 after all, and in the early 1960s even today, functionaries were being tried and convicted, even committing "suicide" for being involved in the Holocaust. If I were Dönitz, I wouldn't want to have anything more to do with any of it either. I'd want to live the rest of my life in peace, undisturbed in my personal politics by bloodthirsty Jews and their Goyim stooges.

Dönitz did what he could to save himself, because he was innocent, and he managed to do all that without conceding anything to the Allied bullies at Nuremberg. That must've been hard enough when he could've ended up in a noose himself. Yet he avoided the noose and avoided selling out his comrades or Adolf Hitler. Does that seem like the actions of a man who was ambivalent? To me, I don't think so.


The source that says that during his imprisonment Speer tried to convince Dönitz to disown Hitler and accept the enemy's atrocity propaganda comes from a book called "Hitler's U-boat War: Vol. II, The Hunted, 1942–1945" by a guy named Clay Blair, it appears in the references of the English-speaking Wikipedia article about Karl Dönitz.

I understand your point of view but I partially disagree. It's clear that after the war, Karl Dönitz (like many other Nationalsocialist leaders who survived the conflict and were not sentenced to death or life imprisonment in the Nüremberg circus) was a defeated and broken man who only wanted to live the rest of his days in peace and tranquility without being harassed by the perfidious international Jewry and their vassals of the FRG, so publicly questioning the "6 Million" Myth would not have been the most sensible thing for him if he wanted to avoid problems. However, I still do not understand why if he refused to betray his Führer, his comrades and his ideology, why did he accept to be interviewed (although I should say questioned) after being released by anti-German journalists with the intention of the latter to profit from Dönitz's statements for his propaganda and falsification of history (such as the documentary The World at War, and for example, the user Revision has sent me in his response to this thread that Dönitz in an interview in 1976 said that: "Today I know far more about him [Hitler] than I knew then. Then, I only saw one side of his personality. And the other side, the dark side... " Although he obviously denied having knowledge of the alleged atrocities, he is stating that the Führer allegedly had his "dark sides" contributing indirectly, though probably unintentionally to the defamation of Hitler) by showing that a Nationalsocialist leader did not deny the existence of the so-called "Holocaust"?

Dönitz knew perfectly well what the intentions of these unscrupulous journalists were, if he wanted to live in peace and undisturbed he could have refused to be interviewed by journalists and pseudo-historians with bad intentions, as for example did the loyal Hitler's bodyguard, Otto Günsche, who refused to be interviewed by no one was except by people of his circle of trust and honest researchers whom he knew that could trust and who would not try to manipulate his testimony (such as the British historian David Irving). Günsche never said a bad word about Hitler or Nationalsocialism but he never had problems, because he was always very cautious and refused to talk in depth about dangerous topics to address such as the "Holocaust", Dönitz could have followed Günsche's example by not speaking with anyone who tried to create propaganda against Hitler and the Third Reich and only concede interviews to honest people but he did not maid that. As I said before, I agree that if he want to avoid problems and live in peace and quiet after being a leader of a defeated and occupied country after losing a World War it is very reckless to question the myth of the Holocaust in public, but Dönitz was not the only one in this situation, other high-ranking Nationalsocialists such as Otto Ernst Remer or León Degrelle undoubtedly also suffered greatly but they decided to question the myth of the Holocaust.

Furthermore, when Karl Dönitz died in 1980 there were already many revisionist works that debunked the Holocaust lie, such as Paul Rassinier's Le Mensonge d'Ulysse (published in 1950), Thies Christophersen's Die Auschwitz-Lüge (published in 1973), Arthur Butz' The Hoax of the Twentieth Century : The case against the presumed extermination of European Jewry (published in 1976) or Wilhelm Stäglich's Der Auschwitz-Mythos (published in 1979), also at that time Ernst Zündel was already becoming more and more notorious as a public figure who questions the Holocuast lie (perhaps he could even have taken the opportunity to contact and interview Karl Dönitz when he was still alive, I don't know if he did that, although I would not be surprised, because if Dönitz accepted to be interviewed by anti-German journalists who wanted to propagandize about the "Holocaust", why would he not accept being interviewed by a person who had a positive view of Nationalsocialism like Ernst Zündel?). I wonder, as a high-ranking Nationalsocialist and legal Hitler's successor, did Dönitz have no interest in the already emerging Holocaust Revisionist movement? As a high-ranking Nationalsocialist and legal Hitler's successor, did Dönitz have no interest in supporting (albeit in a very discreet and moderate way, given his vulnerable post-war condition) an academic movement that with its historical research unequivocally proves that the Holocaust is a lie and therefore proves that he, his Führer, his Nationalsocialist comrades and his people are innocent?

I am not criticizing Dönitz, it's a matter of putting himself in his place, but I cannot understand why after the war he continued to defend Nationalsocialism and refused to slander Hitler and that on the other hand he never questioned the Holocaust and accepted to be interviewed by propagandists of the "6 Million" Myth. It does not seem to me to be a coherent attitude on the part of Dönitz.

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 896
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: The Karl Dönitz scandal

Postby Breker » 8 months 1 week ago (Fri Oct 02, 2020 8:25 pm)

sfivdf21 says:
I cannot understand why after the war he continued to defend Nationalsocialism and refused to slander Hitler and that on the other hand he never questioned the Holocaust and accepted to be interviewed by propagandists of the "6 Million" Myth. It does not seem to me to be a coherent attitude on the part of Dönitz.

Nothing mysterious about it. His position on the National Socialist government of Germany constituted a relatively mild position vs. publicly rejecting the sacred "Holocaust" lie and possible imprisonment.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

sfivdf21
Member
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:58 am

Re: The Karl Dönitz scandal

Postby sfivdf21 » 8 months 1 week ago (Sun Oct 04, 2020 7:18 pm)

Revision wrote:I have not researched this subject further, but I remembered that Doenitz said this in his interview for the documentary "The Memory of Justice" (1976): https://youtu.be/dp9vUYTfAuU?t=277

Doenitz: "Today I know far more about him than I knew then. Then, I only saw one side of his personality. And the other side, the dark side..."

Interviewer: "If by the dark side, you mean the concenration camps, Herr Grossadmiral, in answer to the British prosecutors's question in Nuremberg whether you knew about the camps, you said: 'Yes, I have never denied it.'"

Doenitz: "Yes."

Interviewer: "You still don't deny it?"

Doenitz: "No."

Interviewer: "Would you say that was one of Hitler's dark sides?"

Doenitz: "That is the question. But if he set up concenration camps, one can, in wartime, take the view that during wartime that those convicts ought to be put to work, you understand, and kept in one place together. These are all things whose full significanse could not be anticipated then. Especially as we knew absolutely nothing about the conditions in the camps."


It is important to note that he of cource doesn't deny the existence of the concenration camps, but he seems to deny his knowledge of the alleged atrocities.


It is understandable that Karl Dönitz denied his knowledge of the alleged atrocities, as it never took place. It is also obvious that he didn't deny the existence of concentration camps, as its true that it existed (what is a grotesque lie is that the German KZs were "extermination" camps, the KZs were work camps and prisoners camps). Its also interesting his statement when he said that: "But if he set up concenration camps, one can, in wartime, take the view that during wartime that those convicts ought to be put to work, you understand, and kept in one place together. These are all things whose full significanse could not be anticipated then. Especially as we knew absolutely nothing about the conditions in the camps". That is to say that even if Dönitz did not dare to debunk the Holocaust lie, I believe that such statements can be considered as crypto-revisionist, because he indirectly says that the true purpose of the KZ was to use the prisoners as labor to reinforce the German war industry. However, as I said before, Dönitz did not dare to debunk the "6 Million" myth (and I am convinced that Karl Dönitz, as high-ranking Nationalsocialist hierarch and as legal Adolf Hitler's successor he knew perfectly well that the Holocaust is a lie and 100% anti-German/anti-Nationalsocialist propaganda) and what outraged me most about the interview is when he said about Hitler that: "Today I know far more about him than I knew then. Then, I only saw one side of his personality. And the other side, the dark side". These comments are defamatory and in a so bad taste, for me this interview has been a great disappointment, because we are not talking about an opportunist traitor like Albert Speer or Baldur von Schirach, but about Karl Dönitz, who is supposed to have been a loyal Nationalsocialist until his death.

sfivdf21
Member
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2020 8:58 am

Re: The Karl Dönitz scandal

Postby sfivdf21 » 8 months 1 week ago (Sun Oct 04, 2020 7:19 pm)

Breker wrote:sfivdf21 says:
I cannot understand why after the war he continued to defend Nationalsocialism and refused to slander Hitler and that on the other hand he never questioned the Holocaust and accepted to be interviewed by propagandists of the "6 Million" Myth. It does not seem to me to be a coherent attitude on the part of Dönitz.

Nothing mysterious about it. His position on the National Socialist government of Germany constituted a relatively mild position vs. publicly rejecting the sacred "Holocaust" lie and possible imprisonment.
B.


It is understandable that Dönitz wanted to avoid a new imprisonment, but as I told to the user HMSendeavor, I also did not consider it necessary to accept being interviewed by anti-German journalists and pseudohistorians who only wanted to continue fueling the monstrous Holocaust industry and the defamation of Adolf Hitler, if he did not want to be annoyed and avoided getting into trouble, he could have done like Otto Günsche, refuse to give interviews to the (((media))) and Holocaust propagandists and reject all their offers to participate in TV WW2 "documentaries" (Günsche even rejected so lucrative offers from around the world to write a memoir and/or a book about Adolf Hitler with the condition that these were critical and vexatious against Hitler and the Third Reich, however Günsche remained loyal to his Führer and refused to slander him), or perhaps he could also have done like Rochus Misch, who agreed to be interviewed but when the interviewers asked him about the "Holocaust", he claimed to know nothing about it (as did Dönitz too) but never said a bad word about Adolf Hitler and claimed that he was a good man and that he was not a "monster". Dönitz, although he did not speak 100% badly of Hitler or called him a "monster" or "criminal", in the interview that the user Revision showed, Dönitz literally said of the Führer: "Today I know far more about him than I knew then. Then, I only saw one side of his personality. And the other side, the dark side". In other words, he claimed that the Führer had also "dark sides" and that, curiously, he only met them after the war. I wonder, was it necessary to say that in the interview? I not believe that, because the bad publicity that the Holocaust propagandists poured on Dönitz after he said this were not cease to exist, I personally have never understood the Nationalsocialists who claimed that they knew nothing about the Holocaust (that is, they do not deny the existence of the myth of the "6 million"). For me this is partially understandable and justifiable, but it is not 100%. The usual reply to that is: "But they did not openly debunk the Holocaust to avoid harsh retaliation", but I wonder, would the brutal retaliation against them cease to exist if they don't debunked the Holocaust? Of course not, it is enough just to remember that many of the Nationalsocialists leaders who in the infamous Allied court in Nuremberg said that they knew nothing about the Holocaust but did not dare to question it, were also sentenced to death. So not debunking the Holocaust did not help them, so it does not seem very coherent to continue defending Nationalsocialism but on the other hand not dare to debunk the Holocaust lie (and I am convinced that Karl Dönitz, as high-ranking Nationalsocialist hierarch and as legal Adolf Hitler's successor he knew perfectly well that the Holocaust is a lie and 100% anti-German/anti-Nationalsocialist propaganda).

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3778
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: The Karl Dönitz scandal

Postby Hektor » 1 month 1 week ago (Thu May 06, 2021 6:02 am)

sfivdf21 wrote:.... all their offers to participate in TV WW2 "documentaries" (Günsche even rejected so lucrative offers from around the world to write a memoir and/or a book about Adolf Hitler with the condition that these were critical and vexatious against Hitler and the Third Reich, however Günsche remained loyal to his Führer and refused to slander him), or perhaps he could also have done like Rochus Misch, who agreed to be interviewed but when the interviewers asked him about the "Holocaust", he claimed to know nothing about it (as did Dönitz too) but never said a bad word about Adolf Hitler and claimed that he was a good man and that he was not a "monster". ....


Here is a docu about Rochus Misch:

Not too bad, I'd say.

What I don't get is people getting up in arms, when they realise governments do what governments do (use force against their enemies).


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests