Talk:Kriegsmarine

message: Please note that this has been debated before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gneisenau_class_battlecruiser The outcome seems to be that they are to be classified as battlecruisers in the english wikipedia as they are called such in German battlecruiser Scharnhorst and German battlecruiser Gneisenau. (with a note about the KM classification as battleships). --Sus scrofa 13:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gneisenau/Scharnhorst classification dispute

message: Just to say that the linkspammer active here has been here before, and got a block of several days. I recommend another one if he starts again. A range block from about 180 to 200 in the third number worked. DJ Clayworth 13:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkspammer

message: Note that the Iron Cross on the flag is deliberately set to the left as per Flags of the World. More info on image desc. page.
Greentubing 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: "Hitler inspecting Kriegsmarine units at the height of the war." This cannot be true. The Kriegsmarine officer with Hitler is Ernst Lindeman, captain of battleship Bismarck. The picture was taken during Hitler's visit to the battleship in 1941. --Kurt Leyman 13:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler inspecting crew. 

message: The article omits this important information. What were the major ports, submarine bases, etc.?
--KJK::Hyperion 04:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major ports/naval bases? 

message: I have replaced the explicit External Links with  templates ... I used the <title> from the web pages for the title= tags ... there were two links to the same website (www.german-navy.de), so I removed one of them. --72.75.126.37 00:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates to External Links 

message: Excuse me, but isn't the Admiral with Hitler actually Otto Ciliax? Regards, --Kurt Leyman 16:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Adolf Hitler leaving a Kriegsmarine battleship together with Grand Admiral Erich Raeder." 

message: Added a section on this but it needs some expansion, if anyone has info. I've avoided adding names, as it would become a list. Also the OKM article badly needs serious attention as to its function and organisation - mainly a description of the OKM flag at present. Folks at 137 19:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Command structure

message: :Image:Pt-2745-75dpi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pt-2745-75dpi.jpg

message: German military license plates for the Navy used the abbreviation "WM" ("Wehrmacht Marine"), so the degree of useage of "Kriegsmarine" is questionable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.240.177 (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wehrmacht Marine 

message: Shouldn't "Notable Commanders" be replaced simply with "Commanders", and is also POV? bigpad (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Notable Commanders" field is a function of the infobox and I don't think it can be changed. Raeder and Dönitz were the two commanders of the Kriegsmarine so I think they are notable in this context. To clarify, I don't think that "notable" is meant to mean "good" or "skilled" in this context; a disastrously incompetent commander that led his unit to many defeats would also be "notable", ie. he deserves to be mentioned in the infobox.--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: "It is arguable that, had more resources been put more into U-boats earlier, then Britain would not have been able to defend its convoys quickly enough to avoid defeat. In fact after a year of war, production of new ships had only kept up with losses."
I propose to delete this. It's opinion, not fact - and a rather ill-informed opinion. Here is an explanation:
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/06/german-submarine-force-size-of-1939.html  Lastdingo (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the statement in question is unsourced and hedged with the word "arguably" I see no problem with removing it.--Sus scrofa (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I read it, the Defence and Freedom page referred to does not challenge the contention that more subs could have beaten Britain. It explains the reasons why, not the impact. The second part of the statement, about new v. losses, can certainly be sourced, if only from statistics. As for the first part, Donitz himself reckoned 300 subs would strangle Britain, so there was an arguable case for the statement. Folks at 137 (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  expression of opinion on submarine quantities 

message: A link to air-sea rescue has just been added, but the Seenotdienst is perhaps worth a passing mention. They worked with volunteer life saving boat groups in occupied countries, and with Kriegsmarine units to coordinate rescues. Binksternet (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to contribute, as long as it's "aircraft supporting the Kriegsmarine". If it's just boats, it shouldn't be in the Air and Land units paragraph. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air-sea rescue 

message: Despite the length of the article, it misses an important subject-the Kriegsmarine war crimes and its involvement in mass murder of Jewish population. This should be added to the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Kriegsmarine was involved in Holocaust in Latvia(Liep%C4%81ja massacres), I will also have to check its involvement in medical experiments on humans. Also I believe that some Kriegsmarine personnel was used during death marches--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

text: The Kriegsmarine was not part of the organization and execution of the Holocaust. That was the SS. The Kriegsmarine was also not doing by herself mass murders on Jews. You can see that in the Libau case Liepāja massacres. SS units were doing the crimes. 
A generalisation like in the first sentence: "The Kriegsmarine was involved during the war in atrocities and Holocaust." without any references then the case Libau is not sincere history. I delete the sentence and change the chapter to War Crimes. -- Rakell (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  War crimes and involvement in Holocaust? 

message: Reichsmarine sounds perfectly acceptable for an entity which would later refer to itself as the 3rd Reich... The article however doesn't mention why it was suddenly renamed to Kriegsmarine. Although I assume it had a national/internal propaganda purpose, are there any verifiable sources that mention why exactly this happened? -- MiG (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For German ears is the name Kriegsmarine more warlike then Reichsmarine (Krieg means war). This is the reason why the name was changed. But in the time of the Reichsmarine the Reichsmarine was called unoffically also Kriegsmarine. A German -- Rakell (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reichsmarine" to "Kriegsmarine"? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:National- und Handelsflagge 1935-1945 (HK links versetzt).svg Nominated for Deletion

message: When I created the section currently titled "Major enemy warships sunk or destroyed" I rather arbitrarily choose to only list battleships and carriers. Another editor has added cruisers and a destroyer recently. Now I want to ask where we should draw the line, should every destroyer sunk by the Kriegsmarine be listed for example? Maybe smaller vessels should be summarized, something like "The Kriegsmarine sunk X number of torpedo boats during the war" and so on? If the list gets to long it can be spun off to its own article. I guess it is a question of relevance. Also, should there be a list of Kriegsmarine losses in similar format to the "Major enemy warships sunk or destroyed" section (chronological order, cause of loss etc.)?--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What ships should be included in the section "Major enemy warships sunk or destroyed"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Kriegsmarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080420121039/http://www.janmaat.de:80/m_gesch0.htm to http://www.janmaat.de/m_gesch0.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Hitler, fearing a British invasion of Norway, forced the leadership of the Kriegsmarine to transfer her big ships based in the French Atlantic port of Brest to Norway" seems to be an incomplete and inaccurate description of the decision-making processes. The explanation of the logic for making the channel dash in the 3 sources that I have to hand are:
Garzke and Dulin pg 145-146(a) Hitler believed Norway was the "zone of destiny".(b) The Luftwaffe could not provide the level of air cover needed to keep the ships operational in Brest.(c) Little chance of successful Atlantic operation (i) with the USA in the war (ii) most of the supply ships to support Atlantic operations had been lost (thought this source does not make clear the logical connection on this - only mentions it in considering the evacuation route).(d) With the USA in the war, arctic convoys to Russia were expected to increase.
Koop and Schmolke pg 111(a) Constant danger of air attack.(b) Abandonment of plans for an Atlantic sortie after the loss of Bismarck.Note that this source says that both (a) and (b) "convinced the Naval Staff that the heavy units had to be evacuated from Brest for deployment elsewhere".
Hellwinkel Kindle location 731 of 4855(Given in a more narrative form than the sources above.)Background: (a) After La Pallice raid on Scharnhorst, all three major warships in Brest were non-operational. In addition Lützow had been torpedoed en route to the Atlantic and was undergoing lengthy repairs Admiral Hipper and Admiral Scheer were undergoing overhaul and Tirpitz was still working up. Naval War Operations therefore had no large warships to send out into the Atlantic.(b) The British had better monitoring of exit routes from Brest (including radar).(c) The Atlantic supply ship network had been rolled up (based on codebreaking).Main reasons: (d) Nov 1941 situation report to Hitler by Raeder stated that risk of air attack made staying in Brest highly undesirable.(e) When Raeder suggested Scharnhorst and Gneisenau make an Atlantic sortie and return via Iceland, whilst Prinz Eugen returned via the channel, Hitler asked why all three ships could not return via the channel a.s.a.p. for the defence of Norway.(f) If the channel dash was not feasible, Hitler ordered that the ships should be decommissioned in Brest.
It seems then that this article should say that evacuation from Brest was carried out because Atlantic sorties from Brest were less feasible and that ships in Brest were at significant risk of damage by air raids, as well as the increased emphasis on Norway. It is not correct to say that the evacuation was "forced on the leadership of the Kreigsmarine" as they had come to this conclusion themselves. 
Do other sources concur or differ with this assessment?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for channel dash are incomplete 

message: I will make the changes if no comments come forward.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs) 15:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  the german navy remains afther ww2 was NOT distributed by a single person, but for a commission ... 2Of these 48 U-boats, 30 were allocated to the Allies by the Tripartite Naval Commission."  

message: This page could be enhanced by details of the shipyards and warship building.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.188.53 (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shipbuilding