Why did Karl Dönitz receive a comparatively light sentence despite the crimes associated with his command and the Nazi regime?
Short answerThe answer separates common wartime submarine practices from Nazi crimes and unlawful orders, while arguing that Dönitz could not credibly be both uninformed and fit to lead the navy.
NotesThe opening comments distinguish the legally troublesome charge based on the Laconia Order from stronger accusations involving forced labour, captured naval personnel, and Dönitz's place in the Nazi state. Allied submarine campaigns made it difficult to criminalize unrestricted submarine warfare by itself, but they did not answer the separate evidence of Nazi crimes. Dönitz's senior position made ignorance an unacceptable defence: either he knew what the regime was doing or he was unfit to command its navy. One possible explanation for his comparatively light sentence is that his brief status as Hitler's successor made the tribunal cautious about establishing a precedent for prosecuting a head of state.