It is my understanding that Dönitz didn't surrender immediately because he wanted to give the German army on the Eastern Front a chance to make a fighting retreat, so they could surrender to the Western Allies. He didn't try to prolong the war, as the narrator claims at the end of the video.
I agree. Donitz was very smart and practical and didn't just prolong the war for the sake of pride or being stubborn. I think the reason you listed is very likely why he juggled a little longer for the most acceptable plan for Germany's surrender. But I believe the nazis did a lot of increasingly futile things as last gasp hopes of winning the war. Certainly building a bunch of leading edge submarines in the last 2 years of the war (which of course they didn't actually know when the war would end when they started the program/project to build these subs) would have had a chance of being 1 of the ingredients to pull off a turn of the tides for Germany to win the war. This is a desperate but still plausible hope to have. I think the psychological factor of needing to do something to try to win the war in 1943 was reasonable from the standpoint of a military officer in the high command. What else would they do with their days at work - which is literally their job... except the opposite extreme in plotting the overthrowing of Hitler and the nazi regime - Certainly a much more noble endeavor. What these producers of this video and many historians don't acknowledge is that there really is no in-between. You either try hard to win or try to prepare for a better world after defeat at massive risk to your life. The evidence of how dangerous it was to plot against Hitler is shown by the aftermath of the attempt of his life - Operation Valkyrie. Hitler did have an extremely strong structure of support for his security and function as the absolute dictator. But back to Donitz, I don't think that his mentality is admirable. And yes Donitz did nothing to avoid the nazi policy of using brutal slave labor and speaking out against genocide. He was just straight forward one of the pillars of the nazi war machine. I just think this documentary/history show sometimes veers away from accuracy in how and why Donitz did what he did to end up at the top of the pyramid of the nazi regime at the end. I think the video did an excellent job at showing the almost sure sinister passion Donitz shared with Hitler on how they could win a war to redeem Germany after their defeat in the 1st world war. Donitz was motivated by the satisfaction of executing the down and dirty skillful tactics of war. His ego was motivated by it and he was Certainly part of the evil regime. In the evil world of Hitler he was a smart choice for his successor... for the surrender of Germany. But who cares so much about being able to judge these men. In most of world history the remaining high command of the losing army - the nazi high command - would have been slaughtered by the victor's because that is the opposite form of imperfect justice where the Victor's do not burden themselves with an exercise in fairness. I think we're all here because world war 2 is incredibly riveting in the drama and circumstances of what happened. It just boggles the mind all that happened and there is a very fascinating and invitingly dreadful notion of what would have happened if Germany won the war. And also in more practical reasoning what can mankind learn from this to avoid the horrific chain reaction that was the 2nd world war, in the future.
As a British ex-serviceman who experienced as an evacuee all those war years, I reluctantly endorse this lengthy, well written opinion which totally exonerates the admiral as a war criminal. His submarine fleet and its strategic impact was Churchill’s admitted nightmare, because it was controlled by a professional who had sworn that hideous military oath to Hitler. If his torpedoes had continued their sunken tonnage success rate, Britain would have starved without a negotiated surrender. The entry of the U.S. and the Soviets saved the day for us Brits, but the admiral continued to do his sworn duty to the day he faced judgement, sitting beside the real war criminals.
I would have ranked him lower actually...He didn't ask for slave laborers, he was forced to take them. The allies were sending munitions across the Atlantic on civilian ships, and he didn't ask to be Hitlers successor. Lastly, his allied counterparts were doing everything he was, and worse...How many Japanese merchant ships were sunk without warning ?
What you westerners absolutely don't understand about Russia is what a profound effect WW2 had on the mindset of the Soviet and later Russian leaders. No western country had such an experience. How the war started in the West? By Hitler attacking Poland. But there was a substantial period of strained relations before that. Hitler demanded this and that, and the Poles refused. Only the blind couldn't see that the war was on the threshold. Hitler's attack on France couldn't be considered unexpected. The war was already declared. If you give the strategic initiative to your opponent voluntarily - and exactly that the British and the French did! - don't be surprised by unpleasant surprises. Japan attacked the USA in Pearl Harbor technically without declaration of war. But tensions between USA and Japan were deteriorating by every day, especially after the US oil embargo. Again, only the blind couldn't see the consequences. But in case of Nazi Germany attacking the Soviet Union there was absolutely no period of worsening relations. In fact, there was total diplomatic silence on the part of Germany. Actually, the Soviet government tried to clarify German intentions but without success. So they only saw an ever increasing concentration of German troops across the border. In other words, the war between Nazi Germany and the USSR started "out of the blue". From that time on any Soviet and later Russian leader firmly believes that the West could attack Russia without any prior warning. And the only sign of aggressive intentions would be the ever increasing NATO troops around Russian borders. You may consider such mentality crazy but it happened once in Russian history with horrible consequences and why this couldn't happen again? The politicians will immediately find the excuses, there never were any problems with them
@@colder5465 That's not really true though. While technically they were "at peace", both sides knew it was a peace of convenience as neither had the strength to attack the other at the time. Essentially it was a waiting game to see who felt they had the ability to attack the other first. Stalin only agreed to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact after making overtures to the west for some time and being rebuffed repeatedly. He was under no illusions about the status of relations between the USSR and Germany, it was all a delaying tactic He was also laying the groundwork for an attack on Germany, but his purges and significantly weakened the Red Army and at the time, the USSR didn't have the industrial infrastructure to match the Germans' war output. Long story short, while the timing may have caught the Soviet leadership by surprise, to say that operation Barbarossa was "out of the blue" is an intentional misreading of the facts of history. Both sides knew they weren't really friends. It was essentially a handshake with one hand while holding a dagger behind their backs with the other.
Britain tried (foolishly) to make peace with Hitler. In 1938, Hitler sent British PM Neville Chamberlain home with a signed promise (the Munich Agreement) that he would behave himself. Less than 12 months later, Hitler invaded Poland. Germany waged unprovoked war on England twice. In WWI and WWII, they fire bombed English cities and villages killing or displacing thousands of civilians. In WWII, the Germans in an attempt to rise from the ashes of WWI, turned the entire continent of Europe upside down. They invaded their neighbors and slaughtered millions of people simply because they were Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, handicapped, etc. all in the name of national pride and racial purity. They executed surrendering soldiers and whole villages of people. Whatever actions the allies might have taken against the Germans, it was to get the Nazi war machine to stop what it was doing. And after the war, it was the Allies who got Germany back on its feet. The Nazis would have never done that. They were only interested in destruction. Speaking personally, the Nazi defendants in Nuremberg got far better than they deserved. They were fed every day, they could exercise outside, they had regular hygiene and access to medical care, and they could talk their lawyers. They were allowed to go on trial and give a defense against the charges leveled against them, something they denied their victims. These men (with the exceptions of "barely maybe" Albert Speer and Hans Frank) showed no remorse or contrition. They wholeheartedly supported Hitler. Again speaking personally, I agree with Winston Churchill that they should have been summarily executed.
In the case of unrestricted submarine warfare, you're correct, but the US military wasn't using slave labor to build their infrastructure. It's hard to place Dönitz only because there are so many in that regime who were so much worse. Many of his actions as a military commander can be understood through the lens of the all around barbarity of WWII. Commanders and units on all sides ordered and carried out acts that violated the laws of war, but as is usually the case, there was an element of victor's justice. Also, the Nazi commander's actions were viewed through the lens of it clearly being them who had started the war in the first place. It was not a situation like WWI where all sides shared in the blame for the war beginning.
@@jetty92487 um. All.sides did not share the blame for the start of ww1. The allies forced reparations from Germany exclusively. Broke apart the country as the allies deemed fit. Many would say if not for the treaty of Versailles being soo against Germany there may not of been a ww2 nor a Hitler or nazi party. Some may even say the ww1 allies are as guilty of starting ww2 as the nazi party
@@Alex-g4h1q I said the start of WWI, not the end. Yes, all sides shared blame for the beginning of that war. If not for the convoluted web of alliances and the arms race that had been going on since the late 1800s, all the sides might have been able to see there was no reason to go to war in the first place. Everyone from the UK, France, Russia, Austria and Germany rushed into war because their leadership were petulant monarchs (with the exception of France) who wanted an excuse to use all the new toys they'd been building for 20 years.
And what about the bombing campaign against German cities.... as well as Japanese cities.... No one came out of that war smelling good... some just stunk worse than others
@@Alex-g4h1q wow very fascinating point. I do think the treaty of Versailles was unrealistic and careless even with the unintentional triggering of Germany to rise up again to be a world power and a threat. But that factor of not foreseeing Germany's calling of the potential bluff of the allies demands of the treaty of Versailles AND the factor of Germany pushing it's power all the way to the domination of Europe is 2 different things. The 2nd thing wasn't easy to foresee. That's why it's so critical to study history to see the nuances of what happens in conflicts and keep studying it for the chance of avoiding some kind of massive calamity.
During WW1 when Doenitz scuttled his sub, didn't he go to a psych ward where he played war games, with his food, coming up with tactics, for the future? Doenitz didn't care or show concern when one of the subs sank a passenger ship by mistake. His only problem with the situation was it put sub cdrs in a bad light. He refused to apologize or ask how many women and children died. If not for the WRENS who did their own war game tactics, the subs may have sunk more shipping. What about the folks who died creating the sub pens? Weren't many of those forced labor workers, slaves, etc?
Doenitz told his sub cdrs in order to receive credit for torpedoing ships, they had to be sunk. So, even if it was obvious the ship was dead in the water and the cargo lost, they had to be totally sunk. This deprived many merchantmen, sailors and troops, a way to possibly survive by staying out of the water. Everyone should read the story about the Four Chaplains on board a troop ship. It was torpedoed and these young men in an absolute panic. The Chaplains worked together getting men organized, as many life rafts in the water and handing out life jackets. The Chaplains figured anyone that was able had already come up and preparing to leave the ship. The troops were yelling for them to get off. Suddenly 4 men came on deck without life jackets. They gave them their life jackets and ensured they got off safely. They crossed arms, praying and singing as the ship went under.
I love how the brits always call unrestricted submarine warfar a warcrime while NEVER acknowledging it was a response to british Q ships which are also a warcrime that they did first
If you are to judge Donitz as harshly as Guy just did for the u-boat attacks, how does Guy judge the allied airborne attacks on cities? War is a terrible thing.
Because they are biased court historians on the side of the winners. They are telling us that German imperialism is evil, but that British and US imperialism are good! If you want to learn more: th-cam.com/video/mvlKe6ETyDE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=CSR5ayFeVULXeKr-
I have to say, this series is amazing. I’m from Canada and I wasn’t taught any of this in school. I’m now in my mid 50’s and what I’m learning from your videos is unbelievable. Thank you so much for
was Not taught much about WW2. In fact i was shocked as an adult when i seen the estimation of death fluctuate between fifty and one hundred million ppl. I think we all benefit from rehashing these conversations. An education on ww2 is important but an updated re-education is imperative.
Donitz was what he was. But I have never heard him described as a "fanatical Nazi" until 15 seconds ago, during the opening of this video. I am 54 years old and I have been studying history all of my adult life. I am going to go ahead and trust the people who were alive at the time, who gave him a lighter sentence than the rest of them. I am also going to tell you idiots something, as a Veteran. Soldiers and Sailors do not fight for political ideologies. I served for four years and never, not once, did I have a conversation on my ship about what Congress was doing. Sailors and Soldiers fight for ONE reason, and that is to keep men with guns out of our mothers' backyards. No one likes Nazis. You don't have to oversell it. You certainly do not need to rewrite history to convince anyone.
Dönitz, was not the only one suggesting that the German army joint with the Westrn-Allied and concur the USSR. Churchill suggested the same. So that mirrored some Western-Allied also had.
There are many mistakes in the documentary. It is true that Dönitz followed Hitler's orders, but it was not the Nazi Hitler but the head of state Hitler whom he followed (as did his predecessor Raeder). No Jews were dismissed from the navy because they were Jews. Rather, there was a kind of 'dont ask dont tell' at the time. The attacks on neutral ships only took place when they were sailing in convoys, otherwise they had to clearly identify themselves as neutral ships. The same applied to passenger ships. The rescue/supply of shipwrecked persons was tolerated by Dönitz as a normal nautical act as a matter of course. This only changed after the Laconia incident. You can read all about it in the various memoirs of submarine commanders and books by historians. And so on. BTW: So far the videos have always been good for me, but since today I'm suspicious.
Actually, the German U-Boot policy was different during the war. For some time Hitler hoped that the USA would stay out of the war directly. So there was some limitations. But when he declared war on the USA in 1942 the policy became different.
The agenda is vilify Adolph and vilify all those under him. Facts, reality and the truth about things won't be allowed to get in the way of that agenda.
The further we come from WWII, the more we know about what happened. Unfortunately, the documentaries become more infantile and the gameification of nazi criminality is a new low point.
When Donitz"s u boat during the first world was destroyed He spent some time in British POW camp in Britain During his integration the British didnt reguard him as something special How many men did he send to their death's in obsolete u boats that didnt stand a chance
Well he wasn't wrong about the soviets i guess but weird even still to try after the western allies already knew about the genocide by that point not sure how he thought that would work. Not to downplay that soviet troops did attack the general public ie women and that Stalin kinda killed a lot of his own subjects.
Good lord for the love of Christ, please read some memoirs of the people involved at the time. Winners write history and will never be asked if they are telling the truth and when you do you ask questions, you are a fascist. Makes sense.
Senior USN personnel testified at his trial, they stated that he served his country as any patriot and was not a war criminal.
My understanding is that the US Navy essentially did the same to the Japanese shipping so did not want to call him a criminal
After those naval personel testified, their commander McHale got back to his poker game.
😅@@dr.barrycohn5461
@@dr.barrycohn5461 Ensign Parker brought him a beer
He murdered people.. There are NO, O.K. murderers..!
It is my understanding that Dönitz didn't surrender immediately because he wanted to give the German army on the Eastern Front a chance to make a fighting retreat, so they could surrender to the Western Allies. He didn't try to prolong the war, as the narrator claims at the end of the video.
I agree. Donitz was very smart and practical and didn't just prolong the war for the sake of pride or being stubborn. I think the reason you listed is very likely why he juggled a little longer for the most acceptable plan for Germany's surrender. But I believe the nazis did a lot of increasingly futile things as last gasp hopes of winning the war. Certainly building a bunch of leading edge submarines in the last 2 years of the war (which of course they didn't actually know when the war would end when they started the program/project to build these subs) would have had a chance of being 1 of the ingredients to pull off a turn of the tides for Germany to win the war. This is a desperate but still plausible hope to have. I think the psychological factor of needing to do something to try to win the war in 1943 was reasonable from the standpoint of a military officer in the high command. What else would they do with their days at work - which is literally their job... except the opposite extreme in plotting the overthrowing of Hitler and the nazi regime - Certainly a much more noble endeavor. What these producers of this video and many historians don't acknowledge is that there really is no in-between. You either try hard to win or try to prepare for a better world after defeat at massive risk to your life. The evidence of how dangerous it was to plot against Hitler is shown by the aftermath of the attempt of his life - Operation Valkyrie. Hitler did have an extremely strong structure of support for his security and function as the absolute dictator. But back to Donitz, I don't think that his mentality is admirable. And yes Donitz did nothing to avoid the nazi policy of using brutal slave labor and speaking out against genocide. He was just straight forward one of the pillars of the nazi war machine. I just think this documentary/history show sometimes veers away from accuracy in how and why Donitz did what he did to end up at the top of the pyramid of the nazi regime at the end. I think the video did an excellent job at showing the almost sure sinister passion Donitz shared with Hitler on how they could win a war to redeem Germany after their defeat in the 1st world war. Donitz was motivated by the satisfaction of executing the down and dirty skillful tactics of war. His ego was motivated by it and he was Certainly part of the evil regime. In the evil world of Hitler he was a smart choice for his successor... for the surrender of Germany. But who cares so much about being able to judge these men. In most of world history the remaining high command of the losing army - the nazi high command - would have been slaughtered by the victor's because that is the opposite form of imperfect justice where the Victor's do not burden themselves with an exercise in fairness. I think we're all here because world war 2 is incredibly riveting in the drama and circumstances of what happened. It just boggles the mind all that happened and there is a very fascinating and invitingly dreadful notion of what would have happened if Germany won the war. And also in more practical reasoning what can mankind learn from this to avoid the horrific chain reaction that was the 2nd world war, in the future.
@@russellolenick5642nice short and brief answer.wheeeew....😂😂😂
😅well that is exactly what he did regardless for the reason. You sound like trump.
True
As a British ex-serviceman who experienced as an evacuee all those war years, I reluctantly endorse this lengthy, well written opinion which totally exonerates the admiral as a war criminal. His submarine fleet and its strategic impact was Churchill’s admitted nightmare, because it was controlled by a professional who had sworn that hideous military oath to Hitler.
If his torpedoes had continued their sunken tonnage success rate, Britain would have starved without a negotiated surrender. The entry of the U.S. and the Soviets saved the day for us Brits, but the admiral continued to do his sworn duty to the day he faced judgement, sitting beside the real war criminals.
I would have ranked him lower actually...He didn't ask for slave laborers, he was forced to take them. The allies were sending munitions across the Atlantic on civilian ships, and he didn't ask to be Hitlers successor. Lastly, his allied counterparts were doing everything he was, and worse...How many Japanese merchant ships were sunk without warning ?
100% CORRECT sir!
He was right about The Soviet Union and its aftermath the Russian Federation.
What you westerners absolutely don't understand about Russia is what a profound effect WW2 had on the mindset of the Soviet and later Russian leaders. No western country had such an experience. How the war started in the West? By Hitler attacking Poland. But there was a substantial period of strained relations before that. Hitler demanded this and that, and the Poles refused. Only the blind couldn't see that the war was on the threshold. Hitler's attack on France couldn't be considered unexpected. The war was already declared. If you give the strategic initiative to your opponent voluntarily - and exactly that the British and the French did! - don't be surprised by unpleasant surprises. Japan attacked the USA in Pearl Harbor technically without declaration of war. But tensions between USA and Japan were deteriorating by every day, especially after the US oil embargo. Again, only the blind couldn't see the consequences. But in case of Nazi Germany attacking the Soviet Union there was absolutely no period of worsening relations. In fact, there was total diplomatic silence on the part of Germany. Actually, the Soviet government tried to clarify German intentions but without success. So they only saw an ever increasing concentration of German troops across the border. In other words, the war between Nazi Germany and the USSR started "out of the blue". From that time on any Soviet and later Russian leader firmly believes that the West could attack Russia without any prior warning. And the only sign of aggressive intentions would be the ever increasing NATO troops around Russian borders. You may consider such mentality crazy but it happened once in Russian history with horrible consequences and why this couldn't happen again? The politicians will immediately find the excuses, there never were any problems with them
@@colder5465 That's not really true though. While technically they were "at peace", both sides knew it was a peace of convenience as neither had the strength to attack the other at the time. Essentially it was a waiting game to see who felt they had the ability to attack the other first. Stalin only agreed to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact after making overtures to the west for some time and being rebuffed repeatedly. He was under no illusions about the status of relations between the USSR and Germany, it was all a delaying tactic He was also laying the groundwork for an attack on Germany, but his purges and significantly weakened the Red Army and at the time, the USSR didn't have the industrial infrastructure to match the Germans' war output.
Long story short, while the timing may have caught the Soviet leadership by surprise, to say that operation Barbarossa was "out of the blue" is an intentional misreading of the facts of history. Both sides knew they weren't really friends. It was essentially a handshake with one hand while holding a dagger behind their backs with the other.
Was Winston Churchill a war criminal too, was any British a war criminal or is it only the vanquished
They weren’t part of a regime of absolute aggression.
Think harder…
Britain tried (foolishly) to make peace with Hitler. In 1938, Hitler sent British PM Neville Chamberlain home with a signed promise (the Munich Agreement) that he would behave himself. Less than 12 months later, Hitler invaded Poland. Germany waged unprovoked war on England twice. In WWI and WWII, they fire bombed English cities and villages killing or displacing thousands of civilians. In WWII, the Germans in an attempt to rise from the ashes of WWI, turned the entire continent of Europe upside down. They invaded their neighbors and slaughtered millions of people simply because they were Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, handicapped, etc. all in the name of national pride and racial purity. They executed surrendering soldiers and whole villages of people. Whatever actions the allies might have taken against the Germans, it was to get the Nazi war machine to stop what it was doing. And after the war, it was the Allies who got Germany back on its feet. The Nazis would have never done that. They were only interested in destruction. Speaking personally, the Nazi defendants in Nuremberg got far better than they deserved. They were fed every day, they could exercise outside, they had regular hygiene and access to medical care, and they could talk their lawyers. They were allowed to go on trial and give a defense against the charges leveled against them, something they denied their victims. These men (with the exceptions of "barely maybe" Albert Speer and Hans Frank) showed no remorse or contrition. They wholeheartedly supported Hitler. Again speaking personally, I agree with Winston Churchill that they should have been summarily executed.
It must be remembered that swearing personal allegiance to Hitler and agreeing with his policies was vital to keeping one's job
If Doenitz is a "war criminal" then tha American US marine also because they acted in the exactly same way.
In the case of unrestricted submarine warfare, you're correct, but the US military wasn't using slave labor to build their infrastructure. It's hard to place Dönitz only because there are so many in that regime who were so much worse. Many of his actions as a military commander can be understood through the lens of the all around barbarity of WWII. Commanders and units on all sides ordered and carried out acts that violated the laws of war, but as is usually the case, there was an element of victor's justice. Also, the Nazi commander's actions were viewed through the lens of it clearly being them who had started the war in the first place. It was not a situation like WWI where all sides shared in the blame for the war beginning.
@@jetty92487 um. All.sides did not share the blame for the start of ww1. The allies forced reparations from Germany exclusively. Broke apart the country as the allies deemed fit. Many would say if not for the treaty of Versailles being soo against Germany there may not of been a ww2 nor a Hitler or nazi party. Some may even say the ww1 allies are as guilty of starting ww2 as the nazi party
@@Alex-g4h1q I said the start of WWI, not the end. Yes, all sides shared blame for the beginning of that war. If not for the convoluted web of alliances and the arms race that had been going on since the late 1800s, all the sides might have been able to see there was no reason to go to war in the first place. Everyone from the UK, France, Russia, Austria and Germany rushed into war because their leadership were petulant monarchs (with the exception of France) who wanted an excuse to use all the new toys they'd been building for 20 years.
And what about the bombing campaign against German cities.... as well as Japanese cities....
No one came out of that war smelling good... some just stunk worse than others
@@Alex-g4h1q wow very fascinating point. I do think the treaty of Versailles was unrealistic and careless even with the unintentional triggering of Germany to rise up again to be a world power and a threat. But that factor of not foreseeing Germany's calling of the potential bluff of the allies demands of the treaty of Versailles AND the factor of Germany pushing it's power all the way to the domination of Europe is 2 different things. The 2nd thing wasn't easy to foresee. That's why it's so critical to study history to see the nuances of what happens in conflicts and keep studying it for the chance of avoiding some kind of massive calamity.
During WW1 when Doenitz scuttled his sub, didn't he go to a psych ward where he played war games, with his food, coming up with tactics, for the future?
Doenitz didn't care or show concern when one of the subs sank a passenger ship by mistake. His only problem with the situation was it put sub cdrs in a bad light. He refused to apologize or ask how many women and children died.
If not for the WRENS who did their own war game tactics, the subs may have sunk more shipping.
What about the folks who died creating the sub pens? Weren't many of those forced labor workers, slaves, etc?
Doenitz told his sub cdrs in order to receive credit for torpedoing ships, they had to be sunk. So, even if it was obvious the ship was dead in the water and the cargo lost, they had to be totally sunk. This deprived many merchantmen, sailors and troops, a way to possibly survive by staying out of the water.
Everyone should read the story about the Four Chaplains on board a troop ship. It was torpedoed and these young men in an absolute panic. The Chaplains worked together getting men organized, as many life rafts in the water and handing out life jackets.
The Chaplains figured anyone that was able had already come up and preparing to leave the ship. The troops were yelling for them to get off.
Suddenly 4 men came on deck without life jackets. They gave them their life jackets and ensured they got off safely.
They crossed arms, praying and singing as the ship went under.
The victors write history.
The losers do as well; there's just a much longer time gap before they are heard and believed.
I came here to say the exact same thing.
So, how did Donitz manage to get away with only ten years ?
I love how the brits always call unrestricted submarine warfar a warcrime while NEVER acknowledging it was a response to british Q ships which are also a warcrime that they did first
If you are to judge Donitz as harshly as Guy just did for the u-boat attacks, how does Guy judge the allied airborne attacks on cities?
War is a terrible thing.
Because they are biased court historians on the side of the winners.
They are telling us that German imperialism is evil, but that British and US imperialism are good!
If you want to learn more:
th-cam.com/video/mvlKe6ETyDE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=CSR5ayFeVULXeKr-
Thank You
I have to say, this series is amazing. I’m from Canada and I wasn’t taught any of this in school. I’m now in my mid 50’s and what I’m learning from your videos is unbelievable. Thank you so much for
That's wild I learned all of this in the states in highschool, but now they aren't teaching this here either... history is doomed to repeat itself
was Not taught much about WW2. In fact i was shocked as an adult when i seen the estimation of death fluctuate between fifty and one hundred million ppl. I think we all benefit from rehashing these conversations. An education on ww2 is important but an updated re-education is imperative.
Donitz was what he was. But I have never heard him described as a "fanatical Nazi" until 15 seconds ago, during the opening of this video. I am 54 years old and I have been studying history all of my adult life.
I am going to go ahead and trust the people who were alive at the time, who gave him a lighter sentence than the rest of them.
I am also going to tell you idiots something, as a Veteran. Soldiers and Sailors do not fight for political ideologies. I served for four years and never, not once, did I have a conversation on my ship about what Congress was doing. Sailors and Soldiers fight for ONE reason, and that is to keep men with guns out of our mothers' backyards.
No one likes Nazis. You don't have to oversell it. You certainly do not need to rewrite history to convince anyone.
to be in the know about; to be kept in the dark about;
History has always written by the winners, thankfully all the dirt that the allies did is finally coming out now.
Ver eell presented
Dönitz, was not the only one suggesting that the German army joint with the Westrn-Allied and concur the USSR. Churchill suggested the same. So that mirrored some Western-Allied also had.
There are many mistakes in the documentary. It is true that Dönitz followed Hitler's orders, but it was not the Nazi Hitler but the head of state Hitler whom he followed (as did his predecessor Raeder). No Jews were dismissed from the navy because they were Jews. Rather, there was a kind of 'dont ask dont tell' at the time. The attacks on neutral ships only took place when they were sailing in convoys, otherwise they had to clearly identify themselves as neutral ships. The same applied to passenger ships. The rescue/supply of shipwrecked persons was tolerated by Dönitz as a normal nautical act as a matter of course. This only changed after the Laconia incident. You can read all about it in the various memoirs of submarine commanders and books by historians. And so on. BTW: So far the videos have always been good for me, but since today I'm suspicious.
Actually, the German U-Boot policy was different during the war. For some time Hitler hoped that the USA would stay out of the war directly. So there was some limitations. But when he declared war on the USA in 1942 the policy became different.
You raise valid points. This video does not provide context for Donitz's orders and actions and therefore lacks some in objectivity.
The agenda is vilify Adolph and vilify all those under him. Facts, reality and the truth about things won't be allowed to get in the way of that agenda.
Remove the log in your own eye before you prosecute the one in your neighbors eye.
Too be fair, allied generals were following orders too.
Not the same.
They didn’t start a war of absolute aggression
That’s important
Karl - I have good news and bad news
The good news is you’re finally getting a promotion …..
I think Hitler chose Donitz because he wasn't a sycophant...at least not to the extent that his other paladins were.
Karl Donitz was such a good man that admiral Chester Nimitz spoke up for him during the Nuremberg trials.
The further we come from WWII, the more we know about what happened. Unfortunately, the documentaries become more infantile and the gameification of nazi criminality is a new low point.
I would have loved to be in the room the first time he found out about the Enigma Machine the Allied departments had, and for how long.
BINGO!
Thank you James
60 million? I think your numbers are off
People being shoved into ovens had zero chance to survive. In allied bombings the evil citizens had every chance to escape their fate.
He was the Original Michael Flint.
Should have been rank higher
Squeaky voice though.
Like the first time you heard General Patton speak.
Ya, nothing like the visual eh?
When Donitz"s u boat during the first world was destroyed He spent some time in British POW camp in Britain During his integration the British didnt reguard him as something special How many men did he send to their death's in obsolete u boats that didnt stand a chance
thought he would have been a little higher
Like your iq
@@Danekim_ udouchebag
@@Danekim_ douchbag
I also feel same. Six feet higher from ground.
With the war on the Jews at a fever pitch how did any jew join the German navy? I don’t believe they joined and were left alone.
in every race theres people that hate their own race and pretend to be another ethnicity
Just do a straight-up documentary. These gimmicky history programs are aggravating & distracting.
History is written by victors.
Well he wasn't wrong about the soviets i guess but weird even still to try after the western allies already knew about the genocide by that point not sure how he thought that would work. Not to downplay that soviet troops did attack the general public ie women and that Stalin kinda killed a lot of his own subjects.
Dönitz did NOT succeed Hitler. Göbbels did. At least get your facts straight.
They both did. Gobbels was only the leader for 1 day before he and his wife killed their kids and committed suicide. Then it was handed to donitz
This is correct.
Göbbels was only acting Führer after Hitler’s suicide. Dönitz was officially chosen by Hitler after Göering’s and Himmler’s "betrayal".
Good lord for the love of Christ, please read some memoirs of the people involved at the time. Winners write history and will never be asked if they are telling the truth and when you do you ask questions, you are a fascist. Makes sense.
First 10 !!!