Talk:Wilhelm Canaris

message: I fixed up some grammar, but it was difficult to edit because this page needs a LOT more cited sources. It's hard to edit and improve the style and structure if the actual events are unclear.
Similarly a lot of this reads too well (although with imperfect grammar) and has too much detail, as if it is a translation of a foreign book or article. If so, the source should be cited.
I agree with the unattributed comments below: Canaris is fascinating and his story deserves a better article.
Troy88 08:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing & sources 

message: Why has Canaris been put under the category of "Male Strippers"?
Is there something we don't know about him? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.25.82.46 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male strippers? 

message: "While preparing to surrender in Camberland Bay, the Dresden was attacked and finally sunk by the British in a largely disputed act withstanding the Geneva Convention."
:The Dresden was scuttled by her crew, not sunk by the British.  And who says this is a "largely disputed act withstanding the Geneva Convention"?  And that the Germans were preparing to surrender?  Weasel Words and needs citations. Benea 21:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, I'm going to take most of that out.  Dresden had been in the bay for 6 days, was flying her war ensign to the end, and was very unlikely to surrender.  As in fact happened, they would probably have scuttled her and gone into internment with the Chilean authorities.  There's a distinct difference between flying the white flag (requesting a truce) and striking her colours (surrendering).  Dresden wasn't in a neutral harbour, she was anchored in a bay off a neutral island. If she had put into a neutral harbour, she would have been interned, that is to say the neutral country would have taken the ship over to prevent it being used as an enemy warship in the future, thus violating their neutrality. She was a German warship flying German colours. If anyone was being illegal, it was the Dresden, violating neutral territorial waters.  I can't find any evidence of a dispute due to the Geneva convention. Benea 21:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dresden was no longer operational when it entered the bay. It had contacted Chilean authorities about internment long before the British arrived. There was a Chilean vessel present when the action occurred. When the British arrived, they were signaled by the Dresden that they were no longer a combatant. They refused to talk to the Chileans. The British closed and opened fire on an immobile ship. The actions of the British Officers involved were cowardly and despicable. Certainly not following the laws of war or the Geneva Convention. The man responsible (John Luce) had a rather questionable naval record (to say the least). He ran away from the Battle of Coronel deserting his Admiral (who died) and escaped with almost no damage. Later, during the Battle of the Falkland Islands, he heroically took on a ship that was out of ammunition. It sunk and nearly the entire crew were lost. His attack on the immobile Dresden largely completed his rather sad naval record. A better man would have shown more restraint. 75.17.126.128 (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  SMS Dresden 

message: The Canaris photograph is printed incorrectly.  The ribbon bar on his uniform should be on the left side of his uniform, not the right as seen in the photo. ````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlupiano (talk • contribs) 18:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canaris Photograph 

message: Eye of the Needle
Canaris is mentioned multiple times in retrospective and as the handler of abwehr agent "Die Nadel"s in Ken Follet's fiction novel, The Eye of the Needle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.184.166 (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilhelm Canaris in popular culture 

message: Canaris may by a Righteous among the Nations
http://derstandard.at/fs/1246543875069/Ultraorthodoxe-fordern-Ehrung-des-deutschen-Admirals-Canaris  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The link doesn't work. Furthermore, Canaris was an anti-semite, so I really doubt he'll ever be considered "righteous among the nations". The andf (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Righteous among the Nations]] ??? 

message: 1-At least until 1939 ha was enthusiastic supporter of Hitler and Nazism. Not just a follower of events,but he repeatedly supported Hitler and wrote several praises about him.
2-The article doesn't mention that Canaris was an anti-semite. Not in the magnitude seen in Nazis like Hitler or Himmler, but he did believe according to authors that write about him in "Jewish problem" and wanted Jews out of Germany. He actually developed a plan to expel them to Africa from Europe.
3-I believe there was also some planning of Canaris with Ukrainian nationalist organisations regarding actions against civilians. According to  Pure soldiers or sinister legion: the Ukranian 14th Waffen-SS Division by Sol Littman "In advance of the 1939 campaign against Poland, Canaris ordered Ukrainian exiles smuggled into Poland to weaken Polish defenses by launching a terror campaign against the Jews and the Polish farmers"
This things ought to be mentioned and article correct with proper information.
--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agreed. This article is disappointing. It reads as "Canaris: The Human Rights Defender", which is absurd. Whatever disagreements he might have had with the Nazi Party leadership, he wasn't a good person. 190.18.161.171 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several things missing and biased portrayal  

message: The article is too favourable towards Canaris. He was an anti-semite, a fascist and an early supporter of the Nazis. He only turned against Hitler because he knew Germany would lose another world war. (86.142.36.22 (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  He was no hero 

message: To any interested parties and/or those who I know to produce scholarly historical work --  and  we need to clean this article up. Since I do have two biographies of Canaris, I have begun putting them to use. Your assistance in this process would be helpful. Certainly some of the information from the Abwehr article can be reworded and worked into this one. Also -- does the extensive list of awards and movie depictions displayed within: In popular culture even need to exist? It seems like excessive trivial work better suited for something other than an encyclopedic article. Just some thoughts as I request your assistance with this one.--Obenritter (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pinging me. Yes, the article needs work. I'll see what I have in sources on hand. I trimmed some of the "fluff" content, which I think was an improvement :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem and thanks. We can collectively hack away at this one for a while given the lack of academic substantiation throughout.--Obenritter (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I will have more of a look later when I have time; thanks for taking the time for the improvements. Kierzek (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  and  -- gents, I have made my contributions to this article. It's on you now.--Obenritter (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You have done an excellent job improving this article, Obenritter. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe this article rates a rank and awards section, RS cited, of course. The amount of detail would be up to you, I know you have the books on the man. Any interest? Kierzek (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not my sort of thing. I looked at the indexes of both books and see no lists of ranks or awards anywhere. Thereto - digging through the books to find the appropriate dates for such things does not really interest me. Sorry.--Obenritter (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No digging required! I understand; I thought it might be something easy; I would ask one thing; any info on his Iron Cross awarded? Why? Had to be WWI. Kierzek (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:   Here's a source (not RS necessarily): http://uboat.net/wwi/men/commanders/43.html   And then here is an RS version: He was awarded the Iron Cross First Class on October 09, 1917 for his activities in Spain. (Bassett 2011, p. 59) --Obenritter (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I basically used your wording and added the award of the Iron Class with book page cite into the article. I thought it was worth mentioning. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Not sure I agree with treating Bassett's work as though it is somehow specious. Nothing I encountered contradicted the work found in the more scholarly Canaris biography from Höhne. Moreover - while it may be popular history, the version in my possession is pretty thoroughly sourced with hundreds of footnotes, as well as a considerable bibliography. Please refer those of us interested to some reference material of some sort which shows consensus about the poor quality of this work. I have not seen it and I am a professional historian. Without some substantiated evidence to support your assertion, this is a dry-by comment. COL Jonathan M. House, USAR would disagree with your statement, as he wrote a pretty favorable review in the November/December 2005 edition of Military Review. Thanks --Obenritter (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My only request for you at this point would be for you to find replacement sources which contradict observations from Bassett's work. If Bassett has some stuff wrong, bring the "more reliable" material into the text and demonstrate respectful disagreement within the article. If they do not contradict Bassett however, then place the additional more "palatable" source right next to the Bassett ones. Then you can feel better about the work. The only way to improve the article at that point would be to present alternative viewpoints. My bet will be however, most all of what he wrote accords historical consensus. Just some additional thoughts. --Obenritter (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have to fight, you may well be right! However although I am not a Wikieditor I do know a bit about history: where is the support for the Bassett claims about early recruitment, if that is the right word, by the British? Not trying to be clever, just reflecting (British academic) eye-rolling when I have sought to discuss the book.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.62.186 (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Then do the requisite research and stop merely criticizing an area of concern without making an effort to provide constructive material which refutes the information already present.--Obenritter (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of Work Needed 

message: What do editors think about the validity of this passage? The linked article says that the plot may or may not have been real. 
* Foiling Hitler's plot to kidnap Pope Pius XII: Colonel Wessel von Freytag-Loringhoven's son Niki, testifying in Munich in 1972 and in revelations that came to light in 2009, has reported that Canaris was involved in the foiling of the alleged plot to kidnap Pope Pius XII. MORE PROOF OF HITLER'S PLAN TO KILL PIUS XII: Son of German Intelligence Officer Comes Forward, Zenit News June 16, 2009Italian newspaper reveals details behind Hitler's plan to kill Pius XII CBCP News June 17, 2009 Colonel Freytag-Loringhoven was a subordinate of Canaris. According to Niki von Freytag-Loringhoven, Hitler wanted to respond to the dismissal and arrest of Benito Mussolini as ordered by King Victor Emmanuel III on 25 July 1943 by retaliating against the Italians.  Within days of Mussolini's downfall, Hitler commanded the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (the Third Reich's Security Headquarters) to kidnap or murder Pope Pius XII and the king. Also according to Niki von Freytag-Loringhoven, his father and Erwin von Lahousen, both of whom were employed in the section of German intelligence dealing mainly with sabotage, attended a meeting in Venice on 29 and 30 July 1943 at which Canaris informed the Italian General Cesare Amè of the plot.   General Amè relayed the news that allowed the plot to be foiled. The Italian paper Avvenire maintains that the younger Freytag-Loringhoven's accounts agree with Lahousen's Nuremberg war crimes trials deposition.
I'm not well versed on the subject, but it appears this passage may need more scrutiny. The sourcing also appears to be a bit sketchy (Zenit News? :-) ) K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went through my Richard Evans book, "The Third Reich at War" - nothing; I just went through my "Hitler: A Biography" by Ian Kershaw - nothing; now would you not think that if this was true, two books by foremost authorities would say something about it. I believe it is WP:fringe and has WP:undue problems, to say the least. Kierzek (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I will remove. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mentioned by Bassett on pages 276–277 but I am not sure where he got it.--Obenritter (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Along similar lines, I checked the biographies on Hitler from Kershaw (2 vols), Fest, Bullock, Toland, Stern, and Wilson — none of them mentioned this plot against the pope. Also, I do not recall encountering it in the Canaris biography by Höhne.--Obenritter (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged plot to kidnap Pope Pius XII 

message: Should it be mentioned that he was only 5'3"? (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:586F:ECD5:8A70:C658 (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: In December 1940, Hitler again sent Canaris to Spain to conclude an agreement...
:This is the first mention of Spain. I assume that some text has been deleted, perhaps including the claim that Canaris secretly briefed Franco about specific demands that Hitler was certain to reject. In the past, I have seen this claim, duly referenced, on a relevant wiki-page, though I can't find it at the moment. Valetude (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted passage? 

message: Canaris was friends with Polish spy Halina Szymańska, this verifiable channel to the British needs to be added. Content can be grabbed from her article page... and a Google search with Google Translate e.g: 
Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omission of [[Halina Szymańska]] 

message: He was no saint.
In today's political terms, and even in his days, he was a right-wing extremist. He did see some light later, being realistic about the outcome of the war, and ended up devoured by the very monster he and other millions of misguided German conservatives had created. That alone doesn't make him into a hero of democracy, while I do understand that Americans would have done everything for such a man to work with them after the war. After all, they recruited much worse scum in the name of anti-Communism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Basil II (talk • contribs) 00:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a suggestion for how the article should be improved? WP Ludicer (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he just needed to get his digs in on Americans, though obliquely. Jersey John (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No saint 

message: I've removed the following text because it appears to have no direct relevance to Canaris, but am preserving it here in case someone can point out whether I'm mistaken.
===United Kingdom===
Arthur Owens, a Welsh nationalist, was briefly employed by MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service, to spy on German shipyards in 1936. However, in 1938, he was so enticed by the attractive woman the Abwehr provided him that he switched his allegiance. Owens operated as an Abwehr agent under Nikolaus Ritter and went by the code name Johnny O'Brien. Owens later had second thoughts about his work with the Abwehr and he became a key agent in the "Twenty [XX] Committee", Britain's counter-espionage and deception operation. Operating under the code name Snow, Owens provided MI5 the names of covert spies in Britain. MI5 gave the captured spies a choice of becoming double-agents or death by firing squad. Several former Abwehr agents chose to work for Britain and delivered vital information to the Allies, including details about troop movements and the keys to cracking German codes.
Over the course of the war, the Twenty Committee grew to about 120 double-agents. However, in 1941, the Twenty Committee almost abandoned its double-agents when it found that Owens was also double-crossing MI5. However, when the Abwehr failed to take any demonstrable countermeasures, the Twenty Committee chose instead to provide its double-agents with disinformation to pass on to Germany. After the war, it was discovered that Ritter had known that the cover of the agents in Britain had been compromised, but did not inform Canaris for fear of repercussions.
-Chumchum7 (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section removal