Talk:Flensburg Government

message: Dönitz says he was arrested on board a steamship by the Allied Control Commission, not at his HQ by the British Army. I'm going to change the article unless someone can come up with a source for the current text. Rees11 (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrest 

message: Something is needed to make this make sense: "At the same time, the Fascist press on both sides of the Atlantic has put it abroad that conditions in Germany in 1918, when German Rightists produced similar fairy-tales of impending chaos". It looks as though it should read something like "...conditions in Germany <I>resemble those</I> in 1918..." [guess at omitted wording emphasised]. PMLawrence (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omissions? 

message: Why does it say the German Instrument of Surrender was signed on 23 May when it was actually signed on 7-8 May? Rees11 (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I see it's being edited now. Rees11 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  German Instrument of Surrender 

message: Does the administration really require it's own country infobox? It was not a "Provisional government" or successor state to the Third Reich, only an administration of it (Cabinet Schwerin von Krosigk). The same constitution, laws, etc. of the Reich were still in place and effect. People have begun linking to it from other articles purporting that it was an actual separate country. I'll remove it soon if no one has any arguments. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox? 

message: The text reads at present:"Therefore, on June 5, 1945, the German state officially ceased to exist, and Germany was placed under Allied military occupation." I'd object to the expression state, it should be replaced by government. --41.15.94.169 (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  German State 

message: This article is fine as an article about a unique administration of Nazi Germany, but it was still a government of Nazi Germany. I am removing the infobox that insinuates that it was a separate state.--R-41 (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I like infoboxes in articles. Very handy and useful. Plus pages look more "professional" when they have them. So, I think we should keep it but find a way to make sure it does not insinuate that it was a separate state. So should it use the Nazi Germany infobox? It was a continuation of Nazi German government. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The use of the term "Nazi" is unencyclopedic. It usually reveals some ideological bias or lack of profound knowledge on the subject. The Flensburg government was just the follow the German government under Hitler. It's essentially the last legitimate government of Germany until it's arrest. From that on Germany is completely occupied by the Allied powers, so essentially a foreign military regime. --41.150.26.248 (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  on the contrary, 41.150.26.248, Nazi Germany is the Wikipedia title for the article on the German state that was extinguished at the end of WWII, and rightly so.  The key reference here is Michael Walzer; 'Just and Unjust Wars' (1977).  Walzer's principle is now generally accepted to apply; "Nazism lies at the outer limits of exigency, at a point where we are likely to find ourselves united in fear and abhorrence".  Walzer's point is that to argue general principles of international law - of the nature of states, of the nature of war between states, and of the legal identity of national geographic entities - as though they were operative in respect of Nazi Germany; would be both legally incoherent and morally repugnant.  No valid system of international law can be neutral with respect to Nazism.  Hence the Allied Powers had a common war aim as the extinction of Nazism; and so too their victory not only removed Hitler and the Nazi government; it also terminated the existence of that German state in respect of which Hitler (and Nazism) had merged with themselves into a mutual identity.  Which was not the case either for Fascist Italy, or for Imperial Japan (though in the latter case, more because of ignorance of just what the Japanese had got up to).  It follows that there can be no continuity between the post-Unification Federal German state, and the Germany which existed from 1871 to 1945. The Flensburg Government was no government at all; it simply provided the appearance of a counterpart civil administration to prop up the German High Command. To get the armed forces of Nazi Germany to surrender unconditionally, an order to that effect needed to come from a Führer figure; but the moment that order was given, the last vestiges of Nazi Germany dissolved into nothingness. TomHennell (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing infobox 

message: There appears to be some kind of weird POV afoot, as in "these are the good guys that came to power when Hitler killed himself". The article Schwerin von Krosigk cabinet needs to be merged here forthwith. This is a very strange article that seems to be presented as a successor state to Nazi Germany, as somehow being different from Nazi Germany - rather than being a government of it, while being headed by the NSDAP, and appointed by Hitler himself.
Not to ramble, the Schwerin von Krosigk cabinet article basically has the exact same topic as this one, I think its obviously a WP:CFORK. -- Director (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a successor state, It's a successor government. The state remains the same. And there is no "Nazi Germany" as state. Essentially it's the Germany unified under Bismarck, which was a Monarchy. After the Kaiser's abdication it became a Republic. Even Hitler did not change that. What he did was disbanding parliamentary rule and suspending the constitution, replacing it with autocratic rule under his leadership of the National-Socialist movement, s. The later was viewed as an alternative towards monarchies, liberal democracies and communist regimes. It still remains the same state, regardless of the ruling party or form of government. Germany as state or country was then put under occupational regime divided in zones under control of the Western Allies (Western Germany), Soviet Union (what became the GDR, but also Norther East Prussia), Poland (Silesia, Pomerania, Southern East Prussia etc.). Austria was separated from Germany again, and the occupational zones became the parastates of GDR/DDR (Eastern Bloc) and FRG/BRD the former being incorporated in the later in 1990. A bit complicated, but one needs to know the facts and portray them accordingly. The Flensburg Government was essentially a military government, since Doenitz became its head in his function of an admiral and not as a functionary of the NSDAP --41.145.149.248 (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: a recent edit proposes that Dönitz radioed authority to Keitel for the Karlshorst surrender.  I have not seen this stated anywhere, is contrary to some accounts, and appears to confuse the Reims and Karlshort events.  My reading of the accounts is that Jodl at Reims was acting on behalf of, and in contact with, Dönitz.  The requirement of the Allied powers that the commanders of the three German armed services should attend the Karlshorst signing in person was specfically intended to cut out any suggestion that they were acting for the Dönitz government - which the Americans and Russians did not recognise.  Hence, no occasion was provided for Dönitz to be contacted in respect of negotiations in respect of the amended Karlshorst text; Keitel and co. were required to accept the changes on their own authority, and did so.  As I understand it; unless there is a source that says different. On which see http://museum-karlshorst.de/en/component/content/article/38.html TomHennell (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have reverted the edits as proposed. Both the account of Keitel himself and that of Ludde-Neurath, agree that Dönitz had no part in the Karlshorst signing. Antonov in particular was determined to exclude the Dönitz administration from any formal involvement in the definitive surrender.  TomHennell (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dönitz  and the Karlshorst surrender 

message: I have reverted the following " At the signing ceremony, the German emissaries delivered to the Allied representatives the telegram from Dönitz, authorizing them to sign the instrument of surrender. ".  Donitz certainly nominated the three Armed Forces representatives; but there is no record I can find that his authorisation telegram was submitted at the Karlshorst meeting. Neither Keitel nor Tedder mention it in their accounts; that I can find. Keitel does record in his memoir that his 'credentials' as Commander in chief of the Army (and those of his counterpart colleagues) were inspected by the Soviets during the afternoon of 8 May, while they were all waiting for Zhukov and Tedder to complete their negotiations around the number and order of Allied signatories.  But no mention of having presented them at the ceremony itself. TomHennell (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitulation at Berlin - authorisation from Donitz 

message: In a recent edit from editor Qwertyers, the affiliation of Donitz himself has been changed from NSDAP to 'none'.  On the face of it, this would contradict the reference, which I read as clearly implying that - while Donitz avoided joining the Party until Jan/Feb 1944, he then did so.  There is a continual debate on the Karl Dönitz page as to whether his membership did, or did not, amount to 'being a Nazi'; but I suggest that such matters should be left to that page.  At the time that he accepted the role of Hitler's successor, Dönitz was an enrolled NSDAP party member and held a Party card. That he later sought to maintain that his membership was more formal than actual, isn't really a subject for this article. TomHennell (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party affiliations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Flensburg Government. 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/web/20150612141039/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/05-09-46.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/05-09-46.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is the leading picture not of Donitz? He is the most well-known person in the government.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture?