Talk:Flensburg Government

Members

Does anyone have a list of the members of the "Flensburg government", the positions they held, and dates of office? I've seen such a list before but can't find it online. Homey 16:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Graf Lutz von Schwerin-Krosigk (Foreign Minister, Minister of Finance, and presiding officer of the Cabinet), Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart (Minister of the Interior and Minister of Culture), Albert Speer (Minister of Industry and Production), Dr. Herbert Backe (Minister of Food, Agriculture and Forests), Dr. Franz Seldte (Minister of Labor and Social Affairs), and Dr. Dorpmueller (Minister of Posts and Communications).

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p305_Thompson.html

This is "revisionist history" and I do not associate myself with it in any way.

BScar23625 21:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What position, if any, did Rosenberg have?Homey 02:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Homey. Without rummaging through the internet, I don't know. Actually, I might rummage if I find myself with nothing better to do for an hour. What do you think of Thompson's crazy article?. I wonder who he is?. The look of the article suggests he has some credible academic background. Bob BScar23625 08:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A look into the German article de:Geschäftsführende Reichsregierung might answer some of the questions (some contradictions to the current English article):

• 20 April 1945 Cabinet (except for Hitler, Goebbels & Bormann) flees Berlin
• 21 April: Arrival at Eutin
• 23 April: First Cabinet meeting at Eutin, chaired by von Krosingk (because of his seniority) - daily meetings on the following days
• 30 April: Hitler commits suicide
• 1 May: Dönitz becomes President
• 2 May: Cabinet resigns, Dönitz instructs von Krosingk to form a new cabinet. They move to Flensburg where they arrive the next day
• 5 May: The new cabinet meets for the first time
• 6 May: Dönitz removes Himmler and Rosenberg from all their offices because they tried to interfere with the new government
• 7 May: Krosingk announces unconditional surrender
• 8 May: Dönitz confirms surrender
• 12 May: "Government" meets at Mürwik naval base under supervision of allied troops
• 23 May: "Government" is arrested and leaves Flensburg

Hitler's last Cabinet consisted of Herbert Backe, Leonardo Conti, Julius Heinrich Dorpmüller, Lutz von Krosigk, Otto Meißner, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Alfred Rosenberg, Bernhard Rust, Franz Seldte, Albert Speer and Otto Georg Thierack; plus Generalfeldmarschalle Fedor von Bock, Walther von Brauchitsch and Erich von Manstein.

Dönitz' Cabinet were Lutz von Schwerin-Krosigk, Albert Speer, Wilhelm Stuckart, Herbert Backe, Franz Seldte and Julius Heinrich Dorpmüller plus a staff of several hundred. --Qualle (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Qualle. Thankyou for your contribution. You and I agree that Keitel and Jodl were never members of the Donitz cabinet. The main article is inaccurate in indicating this. The Flensburg government was effectively ended on 23 May 1945, but parts of it carried on functioning for some time after that date. A trawl through the internet indicates that the last meetings of various bodies associated with that government took place as late as August 1945. Bob BScar23625 14:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

My sources are primarily de.wikipedia as well as my (very limited) knowledge from history classes in school. de:Sonderbereich Mürwik partially overlaps with de:Geschäftsführende Reichsregierung, but focuses on the area that was "governed" by the Dönitz government after the surrender. This article states that they met daily even after the Allies arrived, but that their decisions were completely ignored outside their area of influence (about 14 km²). The August date may derive from the fact that the Allied Control Council constituted itself in late August - so some parts of the government probably weren't officially abolished until then. De facto they almost certainly stopped working at the time of Dönitz arrest (if not earlier). Even if they met, their meetings would've had no consequences to the people they "governed" and would therefore be irrelevant.

Germany may have very thourough bureaucrats, but in 1945 even they would have worried about their personal survival in a time of chaos and hunger, rather than shuffle paperwork.--Qualle (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Qualle. Perhaps it is impertinent of me to discuss German history with you?. However, I make a couple of points. The Flensburg government had some control over German forces up to and beyond 7 May. They were in radio contact with army units and U-boats deployed between the Arctic and the South Atlantic. For example, they ordered the German garrison in the Channel Islands to surrender. Also, there is evidence that residual elements of the government continued shuffling paper right up to August (see the article referenced above). Bob BScar23625 16:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not at all - as I mentioned above, my knowledge about this topic comes from secondary and tertiary sources, so it's perfectly concievable that I'm wrong. Where I live, the war ended 9 March 1945 - consequently I focused my research on WWII on the time before that. In my mind, the Flensburg Government is something of a strange episode of post-war Germany - forgive my if that impairs my judgement. --Qualle (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

People should please feel free to actually edit the article. Particularly as the two of you are far better informed on the matter than I am.

As for the revisionist article, I don't know if the guy is an academic with revisionist views or just a very enthusiastic amateur. I found it interesting that he made no mention of Himmler (or Rosenberg) - perhaps in an attempt to put Donitz in the best light. I would prefer not to link to the article as it's veracity is suspect (given the above evidence of "lying by ommission"). Thanks for the info on Rosenberg, anyone know what position he held - he was minister of the occupied territories in the East under Hitler but that would have been a particularly phantomic position to be given in Flensburg. Homey 16:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

For my part I have to admit that I'm not too interested in the Flensburg Government and was just doing a quick translation from german Wikipedia. Personally, I spent so much time in arguments with Neonazis who claim that the German Empire legally never ceased to exist that I'm tired of everything post-Hitler and pre-Adenauer.--Qualle (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Rosenberg and Himmler were never members of the Flensburg government. They showed up first in Ploen, then Flensburg, and tried to insinuate themselves into Donitz cabinet. Rosenberg claimed that, as the most senior surviving Party Reichsleiter, he alone had the authority to dissolve the Nazi Party (and he intended to do so). Himmler tried to wheedle some form of official recognition from Donitz and hung around Flensburg for some time in early May until finally disappearing with a few close assistants in an attempt to avoid arrest. Donitz refused to work with either and did NOT take them into his cabinet. He did, however, draft official letters relieving them of their former offices-- an attempt to let them know in no uncertain terms that they weren't wanted. These letters, dated May 6, must be the genesis of the info in this article that both men were members of the Flensburg cabinet until May 6; not really correct, as you can see. Since Himmler was removed from all his offices by Hitler on or about April 28, his "official" tenure as Interior Minister ended then; and since Rosenberg was not included in Hitler's political testament, then upon Hitler's death and Donitz's succession, Rosenberg ceased to be a government minister at that time. In any case, though physically present in Flensburg and desirous of attention (and whatever scraps of power they might hang on to), Donitz and Speer were adamant about NOT cooperating with these two, especially Himmler, in any way. In fact, when Himmler requested a plane to fly him to Prague (still controlled by the SS), Speer and Donitz considered giving him one and ordering the pilot to land at an Allied airfield. 24.250.114.65 (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Arrest

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)

The Donitz government was HQ'd on the steamship Patria, based at Flensburg. British Army personnel were ordered by the ACC to arrest the government members on May 23.24.250.114.65 (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)TexxasFinn

Omissions?

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 resemble those in 1918..." [guess at omitted wording emphasised]. PMLawrence (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

German Instrument of Surrender

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)

Never mind, I see it's being edited now. Rees11 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox?

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)

German State

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)

Removing infobox

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)

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)

I second this. The Flensburg government was just a government of Nazi Germany. It is not a country or territorial entity in any way - the article on that is Nazi Germany. It seems to confuse some people into thinking this is some kind of a "successor state" to Nazi Germany.

The only appropriate infobox for an article with a topic like this, is {{Infobox government cabinet}}. -- Director (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

Merge

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)

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)

Dönitz and the Karlshorst surrender

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)

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)

Capitulation at Berlin - authorisation from Donitz

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)

References

Party affiliations

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Picture?

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)

My hunch is that it comes from the article being merged with Schwerin von Krosigk cabinet. A one-two image of Dönitz and von Krosigk would make more sense. With the former on the left, as von Krosigk fades out of the narrative rapidly. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)