Talk:Erich Raeder

message: Why was Karl Dönitz taken out as successor of Erich Raeder? Why would Erich Raeder be the last Großadmiral. As I see it, Karl Dönitz took that office in 1943. GeneralPatton?
--BigBen212 06:11, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The Reichsmarine link is being redirected to "German Navy", but the German Navy it is taking about is the present day German Navy of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Deuthsche Marine (1990-present), not the Weimar Republic's navy. The Vorläufige Reichsmarine was a distinct phase of the German Naval history (1919-1935) as the Imperial Navy, the Kaiserliche Marine (1871-1918) and the Navy of the Third Reich, the Kriegsmarine (1935-1945). Having Reichsmaine in red type indicates that an article needs to be written about it. Someone needs to write about the Vorläufige Reichsmarine in its own right (perhaps me). Redirecting the link to the present day German Navy is misleading. Hunter2005 06:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navy titles 

message: This article states that Raeder was "demoted" to Admiral Inspector in January 1943, and that he "resigned and retired" in May 1943. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Raeder remained at the rank of Großadmiral through the end of the war, i.e. he was never demoted.
I'm also under the impression that he resigned as Commander-in-Chief in January 1943 (not forcibly removed) and that he held the post of Admiral Inspector also through the end of the war (did not resign in May '43). Admiral Inspector as I understand it was entirely an honorary position and created especially for him upon his retirement.
24.21.178.83 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resignation/demotion 

message: The picture really does not look like Raeder at all. It should be removed...
"Admiral Raeder together with Hitler. The officer pictured with Hitler is not Raeder, but a Naval captain."
So, the officer pictured with Hitler is both Raeder and not Raeder? If it is Raeder, why talk about a Captain, if it isn't Raeder, why is it on the Raeder page?!
Edit: From the picture it looks to be Raeder, but I'm no expert and I didnt put the picture up.
--81.151.163.142 00:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raeder or Not?! 

message: I once thought that Raeder was a English rendering of Räder, but I saw on the German Wikipedia that the spelling is actually Raeder. I wonder now what the pronunciation is: is it like Räder or like Rahder? Cases of a "e" working as a prolonger after an A are rare, but so is the "ae" spelling. 78.53.207.46 (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The letter "e" after a back vowel ("a", "o", or "u") is not merely an English way of rendering the umlaut.  It was actually the original German way of showing that a back vowel is to be "frontalised".  What we know as the umlaut represents the final development in an evolution of printers' abbreviations:  To save line and character space, printers began rendering the postvocalic "e" as a small letter (in size comparable to or slightly smaller than modern superscript or subscript) placed directly above the vowel.  This small "e" above the vowel was further abbreviated to the two dots we know as the modern umlaut.  Many German families and/or individuals retained the older orthography when spelling their surname; this is another example of how proper names represent "frozen forms" that are more resistant to linguistic and orthographic change than are other words.  165.176.7.3 (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Support - Article is over 250 kB and thus its sections should be split out.  Thoughts?--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * Reply  - I will leave the tags in place until the article is dramatically shortened. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is worth noting that the article on Hitler is 150k long and this one is 275k.  Kinda disproportionate.  OGBranniff (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size split? 

message: This article is too long, according to the template message.
I want to know how an article could become as long as this one without substantial copying from other sources and quite likely copyright violations.
PatrickDunfordNZ (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copying and pasting copyright violations 

message: IMHO, the WWII section is far too critical of Raeder, and very poorly written (not to mention uncited). I know it's just a quick reference to the extended article on it, but everything written so far is very condemning of him.  Not to mention whomever the armchair general is that wrote it seems to think he has more strategic know-how than Sun Tzu. I am rewriting it now. 
--166.62.191.40 (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: WWII Section

message: "The military argued that there were two types of "politics": parteipolitisch (party politics) which was the responsibility of the politicians, and staatspolitisch (state politics) which was the responsibility of the military"
"politisch" means "political" (adjective). "Politics" (noun) is "Politik", so Parteipolitik, Staatspolitik  - capitalized, since they are nouns.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.179.243.243 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "two types of "politics": parteipolitisch and staatspolitisch " 

message: I propose merging the clumsy and unnecessary article: Erich Raeder resignation and later into this article. The subject's resignation is not important enough to warrant its own article Billsmith60 (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the hacksaw approach supported in 2014 – simply chopping the article into smaller parts – does not solve any questions of size. Rather, it reinforces the need for the article to undergo a nut-and-bolt revision to make it both readable and manageable, if it is still too long Billsmith60 (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal